MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169203902 · doi:10.3189/002214309789470851

Topographic influences on recent changes of very small glaciers in the Monashee Mountains, British Columbia, Canada

2009· article· en· W2169203902 on OpenAlexafffundabout
C. M. DeBeer, Martin Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Health Research Institutes
KeywordsGlacierGeologyPhysical geographyGlacier mass balancePeriod (music)Rock glacierSituatedGlacier morphologyClimatologyGeomorphologyGeographyIce streamCryosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An analysis of the local topographic setting of very small (<0.4 km 2 ) glaciers within a small region of the Monashee Mountains, British Columbia, was conducted to investigate its influence on recent changes in the extent of these glaciers. Net changes in glacier extent were determined from a detailed manual comparison of remotely sensed imagery acquired in 1951, 2001 and 2004. Most of the 86 glaciers included in the study showed no observable net change in area over the study period, while six glaciers retreated, four disappeared entirely and only one advanced. Indices derived to characterize elements of the local topographic setting that might affect the local mass balance suggest that most of the glaciers are situated in locations that favor ice preservation by enhancing mass input and/or reducing ablation rates. Glaciers situated in less favorable settings generally either decreased in area or disappeared. The results suggest that most of the glaciers studied have retreated as far as they are likely to under the climatic conditions of the late 20th century.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations200
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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