MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094379081 · doi:10.3189/172756409789624210

Factors influencing the basal temperatures of a High Arctic polythermal glacier

2009· article· en· W2094379081 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trudy Wohlleben, Martin Sharp, Andrew B. G. Bush

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGlacierArcticGlacier ice accumulationMeltwaterIce streamAccumulation zoneClimatologyGlacier morphologyGeomorphologyCryosphereArctic ice packOceanographyAntarctic sea iceSea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A number of glaciers in the Canadian High Arctic are composed primarily of cold ice, but the ice at or near their beds reaches the pressure-melting point (PMP) in the ablation zone. Past modelling studies have suggested that the basal temperatures of some of these glaciers reach the PMP where they should not, indicating that they are not in thermal equilibrium with present-day surface air temperatures. To investigate the possible reasons for thermal disequilibria in such glaciers, a two-dimensional ice temperature model was used to simulate the inferred thermal characteristics of John Evans Glacier, Ellesmere Island. Results indicate that while surface refreezing and historical ice-thickness changes have had a warming effect upon basal ice temperatures, supraglacial meltwater reaching the glacier bed provides the single most critical heat source for explaining the apparent thermal disequilibrium between present-day inferred ice–bed temperatures and those modelled under present-day boundary conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207