MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104589221 · doi:10.3189/002214311796406103

Glacier hydromechanics: early insights and the lasting legacy of three works by Iken and colleagues

2010· article· en· W2104589221 on OpenAlexafffund
Gwenn E. Flowers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGlacierGeologyGlaciologyPhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The association between basal hydrology and glacier sliding has become nearly synonymous with the early work of Almut Iken and colleagues. Their research published in the Journal of Glaciology from 1981 to 1986 made an indelible impact on the study of glacier hydromechanics by documenting strong correlations between basal water pressure and short-term ice-flow variations. With a passion for elucidating the physics of glacier-bed processes, Iken herself made fundamental contributions to our theoretical and empirical understanding of the sliding process. From the theoretical bound on basal shear stress, to the inferences drawn from detailed horizontal and vertical velocity measurements, the work of Iken and colleagues continues to inform the interpretation of data from alpine glaciers and has found increasing relevance to observations from the ice sheets.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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