MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120949779 · doi:10.1029/2005jf000359

Testing a glacial erosion rule using hang heights of hanging valleys, Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada

2006· article· en· W2120949779 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. M. Amundson, Neal R. Iverson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlacierGlacial periodGeologyErosionElevation (ballistics)BedrockHangPhysical geographySnowGeomorphologyGeometryGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most models of glacial erosion, glacier sliding velocity is hypothesized to control rates of bedrock erosion. If this hypothesis is correct, then the elevation difference between hanging and trunk valley floors, the hang height, should be dictated by the relative sliding velocities of the glaciers that occupied these valleys. By considering sliding velocity to be proportional to balance velocity and using mass continuity, hang height is expressed in terms of glacier catchment areas, slopes, and widths, which can be estimated for past glaciers from the morphology of glacial valleys. These parameters were estimated for 46 hanging valleys and their trunk valleys in three adjacent regions of Jasper National Park. The variability in valley morphology can account for 55–85% of the hang height variability if erosion rate scales with balance velocity raised to a power of 1/3. This correspondence is in spite of spatial variations in glaciation duration, snow accumulation rates, and other variables that likely affected hang heights but cannot be readily estimated and so are not included in our formulation. Thus it appears that balance velocity, and by extension, sliding velocity if the two are proportional, may be a reasonable control variable for assessing erosion rate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207