MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415768460

Ice core drilling at King Col, Mount Logan 2002

2003· article· en· W2415768460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Takayuki Shiraiwa, Kumiko Goto‐Azuma, Sumito Matoba, Tetsuhide Yamasaki, Takahiro Segawa, Syosaku Kanamori, Kenichi Matsuoka, Yoshiyuki Fujii

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Glaciological Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce coreGeologyDrillingGlacierArctic ice packSnowCryosphereAntarctic sea iceArcticOceanographyClimatologyPhysical geographySea iceGeomorphologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ice core of 220.52 m was drilled at King Col (60°35' 20 N, 140°36' 15W; 4135m), a saddle near Mount Logan (5959 m), the Canada's highest mountain, in order to better understand 1) anthropogenic impact on the Pacific sector of the Arctic, 2) decadal and interdecadal climate changes in the North Pacific, and 3) dynamical behavior of cold mountain glaciers. The thickness of the glacier was estimated by an ice-penetrating radar survey at five points and the drilling site was decided at the flattest surface of which depth was calculated as 222 m. The recovered ice cores showed the site was located at dry snow zone with a very limited amount of melt-freeze ice layers. Temperature of the borehole was -18.0 °C at 10 m-depth and -17.7 °C at 220.52 m. The Nye time scale suggested that the ice core covers approximately several hundreds years to a millennium record of past climate and atmospheric proxy signals, provided annual accumulation rates from 0.4 to 1.0 m a -1 in ice.

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)0.000
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 score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.149 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Glaciological ResearchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207