MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236962102 · doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2015.12.003

Using noble gas ratios to determine the origin of ground ice

2016· article· en· W2236962102 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Utting, Bernard Lauriol, Denis Lacelle, Ian D. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySnowIce coreGeomorphologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Argon, krypton and xenon have different solubilities in water, meaning their ratios in water are different from those in atmospheric air. This characteristic is used in a novel method to distinguish between ice bodies which originate from the compaction of snow (i.e. buried snow banks, glacial ice) vs. ice which forms from the freezing of groundwater (i.e. pingo ice). Ice which forms from the compaction of snow has gas ratios similar to atmospheric air, while ice which forms from the freezing of liquid water is expected to have gas ratios similar to air-equilibrated water. This analysis has been conducted using a spike dilution noble gas line with gas extraction conducted on-line. Samples were mixed with an aliquot of rare noble gases while being melted, then extracted gases are purified and cryogenically separated. Samples have been analysed from glacial ice, buried snow bank ice, intrusive ice, wedge ice, cave ice and two unknown ice bodies. Ice bodies which have formed from different processes have different gas ratios relative to their formation processes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207