MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340866853 · doi:10.1002/esp.3956

Interrogating the time and processes of development of the Las Liebres rock glacier, central Chilean Andes, using a numerical flow model

2016· article· en· W2340866853 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Monnier, Christophe Kinnard

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRock glacierGlacierGeomorphologyRheologyCreepGlacier morphologyDebris flowDebrisIce streamClimatologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Las Liebres rock glacier is a large (~2.2 km long) Andean rock glacier whose internal composition and kinematics are known from previous studies. We investigate its development by posing and testing the following null hypothesis: the rock glacier has developed from a constant supply of debris and ground ice in periglacial conditions and resulting creep of the ice‐rock mixture. A rheological model was formulated based on recent advances in the study of ice‐rock mixture rheology, and calibrated on the known surface velocities and internal composition of the rock glacier. We show that the rock glacier viscosity is inversely related to both water and debris fractions, in agreement with recent field and theoretical studies of ice‐rock mixture rheology. Taking into account the possible variations in water fraction, the model was used to estimate the time spans of development (0.91–7.11 ka), rates of rock wall retreat (0.44–4.18 mm/a), and rates of ground ice formation (0.004–0.026 m/a) for the rock glacier. These results support the null hypothesis of a periglacial origin of the Las Liebres rock glacier. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207