MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286848708

Where, how fast, and why arctic permafrost coasts undergo coastal erosion?

2010· article· en· W2286848708 on OpenAlex
Hugues Lantuit, Pier Paul Overduin

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHelmholtz-Zentrum für Polar-und Meeresforschung (Alfred-Wegener-Institut) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostArcticThermokarstCoastal erosionArctic ecologyErosionOceanographyStormPhysical geographyGlobal warmingClimate changeGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeomorphology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permafrost coasts represent 34 % of the global coastline and are likely to become one of the most impacted environments of the Earth under changing climate conditions. The lengthening of the open-water season and the increasing open-water area, the warming of permafrost, the increasing occurrence of coastal thermokarst, and the increase in sea surface temperatures are all thought to impact the pace of coastal erosion. In particular, storms are predicted to hit the coasts later in the fall season. These storms are thought to bear staggering threats to the coasts in the form of destruction of community and industry infrastructure as well as dramatic changes in sedi-ment and nutrient pathways in the nearshore zone. Alas, there is little data available to provide a cir-cumarctic picture of coastal erosion and to indicate erosion trends. Indeed, arctic coasts remain largely unknown and unexplored, which puts current adap-tation and mitigation strategies in northern commu-nities into jeopardy.In this presentation, we present the latest results from the Arctic Coastal Dynamics project, initiated by the International Permafrost Association and the International Arctic Science Committee in 1999. A classification, built to consistently describe the geo-morphological characteristics and processes ob-served at the coast along the arctic rim, indicates that the geomorphological setting of arctic coasts is highly spatially variable. This dataset highlights the major influence of this setting on the erosion rates observed and the in fine difficulty in providing sta-tistics at the global level. It shows, however that some striking regional traits can be deduced from the dataset. Alaskan and Canadian coasts in the Beaufort Sea are characterized by larger ground ice contents but also by much smaller cliff heights than other arctic coasts. Overall it shows that circumpolar coastal erosion is on average 0.5 m/yr, but again with strong differences between arctic regions, with rates close to 10 m/yr in some areas and stable coasts in others. A second outcome of the ACD project is a recent as-sessment of erosion rates and their evolution throughout the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century. Despite the recent media attention to coastal erosion, reliable long-term datasets asserting an increase in coastal erosion are scarce in the Arctic. This presen-tation will present the latest datasets published in the literature and compare their spatial coverage to the extent of permafrost coasts at the arctic scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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