MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135336381 · doi:10.1177/0959683610391315

Tree-ring dating of the nineteenth-century advance of Brady Glacier and the evolution of two ice-marginal lakes, Alaska

2011· article· en· W2135336381 on OpenAlexafffund
Denny M. Capps, Gregory C. Wiles, John J. Clague, Brian H. Luckman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Holocene · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyGlacierChronologyTidewater glacier cycleGlacier mass balanceSubfossilElevation (ballistics)Physical geographyGlacier morphologyBedrockPaleontologyGlacial periodGeomorphologyOceanographyIce calvingIce streamHoloceneGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We utilized dendrochronology and precise elevation-constrained mapping to date glacially overridden and drowned trees at the margin of Brady Glacier in southeast Alaska. This technique allowed determination of the timing of the former tidewater glacier’s last advance and consequent formation and filling of two marginal lakes. The subfossil tree-ring chronology spans the interval from AD 1370 to 1861. Brady Glacier impounded Spur Lake to an elevation of 83 m a.s.l. around 1830 and 121 m a.s.l. around 1839. Soon after, Spur Lake reached 125 m a.s.l. and began to overflow a stable bedrock sill. The glacier continued to advance, thickening by at least 77 m between c. 1844 and 1859 at a site down-glacier of Spur Lake on the opposite glacier margin. Farther down-glacier, North Trick Lake began to form by 1861 and reached its highest elevation at approximately 130 m a.s.l. when Brady Glacier reached its maximum extent around 1880. Our findings add precision to the chronology of the last advance of Brady Glacier and provide insight into the evolution of glacier-dammed lakes and calving glaciers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe HoloceneSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207