MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345796383 · doi:10.1017/aog.2016.6

Correlations of suspended sediment size with bedrock lithology and glacier dynamics

2016· article· en· W2345796383 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeff W. Crompton, Gwenn E. Flowers

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityParks CanadaGarfield Weston FoundationAssociation of Canadian Universities for Northern StudiesArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsBedrockGeologyGlacierSurgeLithologyRock glacierGeomorphologySedimentGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The hypothesized link between glacier surging and bedrock geology motivates this study of the suspended sediment size distributions (SSSD) from surge-type and non-surge-type glaciers. We analyze SSSDs from proglacial streams in 20 individual basins comprising various fractions of metasedimentary (MS) and felsic plutonic rocks. We compare the size distributions by performing tests of significance on the distribution statistics, and a principal component analysis on discrete grain sizes. We find that surge-type and non-surge-type glaciers underlain solely by MS rocks have significantly different SSSDs, while surge-type glaciers as a whole have remarkably similar SSSDs, regardless of the underlying bedrock geology. These observations hint at a relationship between sediment characteristics and glacier surging, though causation in either direction cannot be established without additional data.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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