MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623945613 · doi:10.3390/w9060405

Climate–Glacier Dynamics and Topographic Forcing in the Karakoram Himalaya: Concepts, Issues and Research Directions

2017· article· en· W2623945613 on OpenAlexaff
I. D. Dobreva, Michael P. Bishop, Andrew B. G. Bush

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlacierGeologyForcing (mathematics)ClimatologyClimate changeMonsoonNatural hazardPhysical geographyGeomorphologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding climate-glacier dynamics in High Mountain Asia is of critical importance to address issues including water resources, sea-level rise, mountain geodynamics, natural hazards and ecosystem sustainability. The Karakoram Himalaya is arguably the least understood region, given its extreme topography, climate-system coupling, and advancing and surge-type glaciers that exhibit complex flow patterns. Glacier fluctuations in the Karakoram Himalaya are highly variable in space and time because of numerous controlling factors, including the westerlies, the Indian summer monsoon, various teleconnections, topographic effects, glacier debris-cover characteristics, glacier dynamics, and geological conditions. The influence of the integrative coupling of forcing factors, however, has not been adequately assessed for characterizing the glaciers in the Karakoram Himalaya. Given the scarcity of in-situ data and the difficulty of conducting fieldwork on these glaciers, recent research has focused on utilizing remote sensing, geospatial technologies, and scientific modeling to obtain baseline information about the state of glaciers in the region. This review summarizes our current knowledge of glaciers, climate-glacier interaction, and topographic forcing in the Karakoram Himalaya, and demonstrates the complexities in mountain geodynamics that influence climate-glacier dynamics. Innovative analysis is also presented in support of our review and discussion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207