MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2770664740 · doi:10.5194/tc-2017-236

Subglacial drainage patterns of Devon Island, Canada: Detailedcomparison of river and tunnel valleys

2017· article· en· W2770664740 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna Grau Galofre, M. Jellinek, G. R. Osinski, M. Zanetti, Antero Kukko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyMeltwaterGeomorphologyBedrockGlacierTributaryIce streamDrumlinErosionDrainageHydrology (agriculture)CryosphereOceanographySea iceGeographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Tunnel valleys are bedrock incised channels (N-channels) attributed to erosion by meltwater in subglacial conduits. They exert a major control on meltwater accumulation at the base of ice sheets, serving as drainage pathways and modifying ice flow rates. Exposed relict tunnel valleys offer a unique opportunity to study the geomorphologic fingerprint of subglacial erosion and characterize the geometry of individual channels. In this study we present field and remote sensing observations of exposed tunnel valleys on Devon Island (Canadian Arctic Archipelago), including descriptions of tunnel valley cross sections and longitudinal profiles, as well as network morphology, to describe the spatial extend and distinctive characteristics of subglacial drainage systems. We use field-based GPS measurements of tunnel valley longitudinal profiles, along with stereo imagery derived Digital Surface Models (DSM), and novel kinematic mobile LiDAR data to establish a quantitative comparison of tunnel and river valleys in our field study area. Tunnel valleys typically cluster in groups of 5-10 channels throughout the island, oriented radially with respect to active or former ice margins. We identify departures in tunnel valley direction from local topographic gradients and undulations in the longitudinal profiles. We also observe that the width of first order tributaries is one to two orders of magnitude larger than in river systems, and remarkably constant downstream. These distinctive aspects of tunnel valley morphology are similar among the different locations characterized in the study. Furthermore, our findings are consistent with expectations of flow driven by gradients in effective water pressure related to variations in ice thickness. Our field and remote sensing observations provide a rigorous way to distinguish tunnel and river valleys in local and regional topography data that revisits well-established field identification guidelines. Distinguishing river and tunnel valleys in topographic data is critical for understanding the emergence, geometry and extent of channelized subglacial drainage systems. The final aim of this study is to facilitate the identification of tunnel valley networks throughout the globe by using remote sensing techniques, which will improve the detection of these systems and help to build understanding of the mechanics of subglacial channelized drainage.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→