Glacier Distributions and Climate in the Canadian Rockies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glacier-climate relationships in the Canadian Rockies have been documented previously through mass-balance studies of individual glaciers and local meteorological parameters. In terms of regional significance, however, the relationship between the areal distribution of glaciers and regional climate is perhaps more important in evaluating large-scale responses to climate forcings. The purpose of the current study is to establish which climate variables are responsible for the observed distribution of glaciers. Using a 1:50,000 digitized coverage of glaciers in the Canadian Rockies, a 1-km resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and climate normals from 88 stations throughout the study area, the authors examine the correlation between climate variables and the distribution of glacial ice in the Canadian Rockies. Through the construction of climatic lapse rates, sea-surface interpolation, and subsequent extrapolation based on the DEM, simple cell climatologies that reflect both the altitudinal and regional variations in temperature and precipitation are developed for the study area. Normalized Ice Coverage values prescribed for the study cells from the digitized coverage are then examined through a statistical framework which suggests that spring precipitation, annual temperatures, and winter precipitation are the strongest predictors of glacier distributions in the Canadian Rockies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it