Bedrock erosional features and landforms, Cantley, Quebec: GAC-MAC field trip, May 28, 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several erosional forms on bedrock at Cantley, Quebec, differ from well-known glacial abrasion forms. The forms consist of obstacle marks, hollows, depressions, and channels, which are defined by sharp rims, smooth inner surfaces, divergent flow features, and remnant ridges. These forms are found on lee, lateral, and overhung rock surfaces. This assemblage of features is best explained by differential erosion produced by separation eddies along lines of flow reattachment. Rapid, sediment-laden, turbulent, subglacial melt-water flows likely produced the forms by corrasion and cavitation erosion. Ice-abrasion forms, such as striations, and such plucked forms as gouges and crescentic fractures are also present at the Cantley site. Pitted forms, polishing, and carbonate precipitate are also found. The occurrence of abrasion, pitting, polishing, and lee-side carbonate precipitate with meltwater forms suggests that the meltwater flows were subglacial. Decoupling of abrading ice from its bed temporarily suspended glacial abrasion, whereas reattachment of ice to the bed may have led to the rounding of sharp edges and the production of striations superposed on the glaciofluvial forms. The association of forms produced both by glaciofluvial erosion and ice abrasion suggests that the glacier was alternately lifted from, and reattached to, the bed during periodic subglacial floods. These floods may have affected the dynamics of the ice sheet, and depositional sequences related to high-energy meltwater outbursts probably were laid down in adjacent basins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.009 |
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".