MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2258145324

Abstract: Morphology and sedimentology of raised-beach sequences as a proxy indicator of past sea-ice intensity, Canadian Arctic Archipelago

2008· article· en· W2258145324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominique St. Hilaire, Trevor Bell, Donald L. Forbes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentologyGeologyArctic ice packSea iceArcticOceanographyAntarctic sea iceArctic sea ice declineArchipelagoSeabed gouging by icePhysical geographyClimatologyGeographyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing concern about the state of Arctic sea-ice has been highlighted in the recently published ACIA report (2005). The alarming trends of decreasing sea-ice extent and thickness in the Arctic Ocean stress the need for comprehensive studies of past sea-ice variability. The primary goal of this study is to investigate whether raised beach sequences, preserved on the emergent coastline of the central Canadian Arctic, contain a proxy record of past sea-ice intensity. The research approach is to compare variations in beach morphology and sedimentology with a proxy record of sea ice intensity derived from driftwood and whalebone occurrences on emerged beaches. It is hypothesized that periods of reduced sea ice intensity and increased open water would expose shorelines to higher and more prolonged wave energy, leading to better developed beach berms. More specifically then, the study will: a) document variability in beach morphology and sedimentology as a function of age and b) assess the extent to which variations in

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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→