Water tracks in the High Arctic: a hydrological network dominated by rapid subsurface flow through patterned ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water tracks play a major role in the headwater basin hydrology of permafrost landscapes in Alaska and Antarctica, but less is known about these features in the High Arctic. We examined the physical and hydrological properties of water tracks on Ward Hunt Island, a polar desert site in the Canadian High Arctic, to evaluate their formation process and to compare with water tracks reported elsewhere. These High Arctic water tracks flowed through soils that possessed higher near-surface organic carbon concentrations, higher water content, and coarser material than the surrounding soils. The water track morphology suggested they were initiated by a combination of sorting, differential frost heaving, and eluviation. The resultant network of soil conduits, comparable to soil pipes, dominated the hydrology of the slope. The flow of cold water through these conduits slowed down the progression of the thawing front during summer, making the active layer consistently shallower relative to adjacent soils. Water tracks on Ward Hunt Island, and in polar desert catchments with these features elsewhere in the High Arctic, strongly influence slope hydrology and active-layer properties while also affecting vegetation distribution and the quality of runoff to the downstream lake.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".