MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143962435 · doi:10.1029/2012gl051445

Transient nature of Arctic spring systems driven by subglacial meltwater

2012· article· en· W2143962435 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna Scheidegger, Victor Bense, Stephen E. Grasby

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostMeltwaterGeologySpring (device)Groundwater flowGeomorphologyArcticGroundwaterGlacial periodGroundwater dischargeFjordHydrology (agriculture)AquiferOceanographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the High Arctic, supra‐ and proglacial springs occur at Borup Fiord Pass, Ellesmere Island. Spring waters are sulfur bearing and isotope analysis suggests springs are fed by deeply circulating glacial meltwater. However, the mechanism maintaining spring flow is unclear in these areas of thick permafrost which would hamper the discharge of deep groundwater to the surface. It has been hypothesized that fracture zones along faults focus groundwater which discharges initially underneath wet‐based parts of the ice. With thinning ice, the spring head is exposed to surface temperatures, tens of degrees lower than temperatures of pressure melting, and permafrost starts to develop. Numerical modeling of coupled heat and fluid flow suggest that focused groundwater discharge should eventually be cut off by permafrost encroaching into the feeding channel of the spring. Nevertheless, our model simulations show that these springs can remain flowing for millennia depending on the initial flow rate and ambient surface temperature. These systems might provide a terrestrial analog for the possible occurrence of Martian springs recharged by polar ice caps.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207