MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138878432 · doi:10.2747/0272-3646.24.2.170

Reinterpretation of the Original Dekalb Mounds in Illinois

2003· article· en· W2138878432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Iannicelli

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Geography · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOutwash plainPermafrostLandformLoessGlacial periodGeomorphologyGlacial landformPaleontologyPhysical geographyArchaeologyMoraineGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The enigmatic DeKalb mounds in north-central Illinois, United States, are oval, inactive hillocks of Wisconsinan age. They have heights up to 5 m, lengths up to 1 km, and are composed either of till and lacustrine sediment with a thin cap of loess, or entirely of outwash. They are underlain by one till member within a large depression that is flanked by higher, elevated, morainic till members. Different origins have been proposed for the DeKalb mound field but the only previous in-depth study identified them as pingo remnants, presumably due to the degradation of significant ground ice and permafrost. However, the investigators who reported this viewed their own hypothesis as problematical. These problems can be resolved by correlating the relict Illinois landforms to relict glacial landforms that show similar morphologies and field relationships in Saskatchewan, Canada, and North Dakota, United States. In this study, the DeKalb mounds are presumed to have developed from an intricate set of glacial dead-ice and mass movement processes. This reinterpretation reflects a range of either discontinuous permafrost or negative permafrost within the paleoenvironment.

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)0.000
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical GeographySame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207