Hummocks in alpine tundra, northern British Columbia, Canada: distribution, morphology and organic carbon composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hummocks develop by cryoturbation in fine-grained frost-susceptible soils and their stage of maturity may affect the translocation of organics in Cryosols. This study examines the distribution and morphology of hummocks in the Chuck Creek Trail Valley (northern British Columbia) and determines the quantity, distribution, and composition of organic matter in their soils. Hummocks occupy about 5%–20% of the valley and their morphology is largely affected by their silt content. Cryoturbated intrusions, radiocarbon dated to 2814 and 1648 cal year B.P., suggest that hummock development was initiated during the cooler late Holocene. Hummocks have an average soil organic carbon density of 16.3 kg m−2 in the uppermost 1 m, with 62% stored in the top 25 cm. Organics are mainly present as particulate organic matter in the O-horizon (25%–80%), characterized by degradable alkyl C and O/N-alkyl groups, but occur as mineral-associated organic matter (96%–98%) composed of recalcitrant aromatic and aliphatic C groups in the underlying B and C horizons. Minor differences in organic content and composition occur between hummock tops and troughs, and between hummocks showing different stages of maturity. In the absence of an observed frost table, contemporary hummock activity is attributed to seasonal freezing and thawing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".