MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332320745 · doi:10.3189/2014jog13j134

Characteristics of the last five surges of Lowell Glacier, Yukon, Canada, since 1948

2014· article· en· W2332320745 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandre Bevington, Luke Copland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSurgeGlacierGeologyCurrent (fluid)Glacier terminusGlacier mass balanceAccumulation zoneMagnitude (astronomy)Physical geographyClimatologyOceanographyGeomorphologyGeographyIce stream

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Field observations, aerial photographs and satellite images are used to reconstruct the past surges of Lowell Glacier, Yukon, Canada, since 1948 based on the timing of terminus advances. A total of five surges occurred over this time, each with a duration of ~1–2 years. The time between successive surges ranged from 12 to 20 years, and appears to have been shortening over time. The relatively short advance and quiescent phases of Lowell Glacier, together with rapid increases in velocity during surges, suggest that the surging is controlled by a hydrological switch. The 2009–10 surge saw ablation area velocities increase by up to two orders of magnitude from quiescent velocities, and the terminus increase in area by 5.1 km 2 and in length by up to 2.85 km. This change in area was the smallest since 1948, and follows the trend of decreasing surge extents over time. This decrease is likely driven by a strongly negative surface mass balance of Lowell Glacier since at least the 1970s, and means that the current town site of Haines Junction is very unlikely to be flooded by damming caused by any future advances of the glacier under the current climate regime.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations62
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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