MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318038527 · doi:10.3189/172756411799096213

Use of historical elevation data to calculate surface-elevation and volume changes of Ha-Iltzuk Icefield, southwest British Columbia, Canada, 1970 to mid-1980s

2011· article· en· W2318038527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey A. VanLooy, R. R. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of UtahNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsIce fieldElevation (ballistics)ThinningGeologyGlacial periodSnowPhysical geographyGlacierDigital elevation modelClimatologyGeomorphologyGeographyRemote sensingForestryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Investigations into glacial changes, including understanding variations in the rates of glacial volume and surface-elevation changes, have increased over the past decade. This study uses historical glacier elevation data in the form of topographic maps from 1970 and a digital elevation model from the mid-1980s to calculate surface-elevation and volume changes for Ha-Iltzuk Icefield, southwest British Columbia, Canada. Results indicate that the icefield thinned at an average rate of 0.76±0.25 ma–1 during this period. A previous study of Ha-Iltzuk Icefield also using the geodetic method found a thinning rate of 1.0±0.20ma–1 between the mid-1980s and 1999, indicating a slight increase in the amount of icefield thinning. Within the ablation zone, thinning increased with decreasing elevation at a rate of 1.9±0.68 ma–1 km–1 between these two periods (1970 to mid-1980s versus mid-1980s to 1999). Analysis of meteorological data suggests that increases in both temperature and rainfall, as well as decreases in snowfall, likely contributed to the increased thinning rate.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.066 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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