An assessment of surficial geology, massive ice, and ground ice, Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, Northwest Territories: application to the proposed Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk all-weather highway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report utilizes seismic shothole drillers' lithostratigraphic logs as a basis for contrasting previously published maps and reports of surficial geology, massive ice and ground ice, on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, Northwest Territories. Areas of glaciofluvial ice-contact and outwash deposits, and lacustrine sediments in thermokarst terrain are demonstrated to be less extensive, while areas of till cover are more widespread. Approximately 2% of all shotholes contain records of massive ice, it is most abundant between 4 and 14 m depth, and principally is situated at lithostratigraphic contacts (73%). On the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, half (52%) of the massive ice records occur in areas of surface till cover, and it is largely underlain by "sorted + sorted, fine" deposits (72%). Significant spatial, lithostratigraphic, and thickness differences are noted in other physiographic regions. Shothole ground ice records are more common (13% of all such records), particularly within the 15 km buffer area surrounding the proposed Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk Highway (18.4%), although it is acknowledged that many such records may relate to massive ice deposits, and that drillers typically under-report ground ice occurrence. There is significant disagreement between shothole-based massive ice and ground ice occurrences with existing permafrost and ground ice maps that were constructed on the basis of surficial geology-related ground ice associations. Changes in surficial geology classification account for part, elsewhere, ground ice is simply found to be more abundant in different deposit types than previously surmised. It is argued that integration of abundant shothole lithostratigraphic data provides a more reliable reconstruction of surficial geology, massive ice, and ground ice conditions in the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula. The data and syntheses presented can better inform engineering and landscape stability assessments, and similarly identify areas wherein more detailed field-surveys and inspection are likely required as part of an infrastructure development proposal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".