Converging ice streams: an unreasonable hypothesis for deposition of the Oak Ridges Moraine, southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis that Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) formed between converging ice streams requires critical testing. Available data (e.g., digital elevation models, maps, seismic profiles, continuous cores, and pit exposures) are inconsistent with the converging ice stream hypothesis. Combined analysis of landform and subsurface data permits testing the ORM area stratigraphic sequence and sedimentary origin. Stratigraphic data indicate that drumlinized Newmarket Till, incised by north–south-oriented (tunnel) valleys, extends beneath ORM. Thus, streamlining on Newmarket Till is older than ORM and has no direct bearing on its formation. The north–south-trending valleys truncate streamlined Newmarket Till, extend to bedrock, have inset eskers, and occur beneath ORM. Hence, these valleys are older than ORM and have a subglacial rather than a proglacial origin. Overlying the mega-scale lineations and incised channels are topographically elevated (>300 m a.s.l.), ORM glaciofluvial–glaciolacustrine sequences. Its east to west paleoflow trend indicates an east–west-oriented hydraulic gradient, orthogonal to expected gradients of proposed north-south converging ice streams. The exclusive presence of ORM meltwater sediments, with rare deformation, is incompatible with a converging ice stream, deforming-bed hypothesis. Halton sediment grades upward from stratified sand (ORM) to interbedded diamicton and glaciolacustrine sediment, rather than deformation till. Halton sediment overlies ORM and consequently the proposed Halton ice streaming is younger than the moraine. Halton Till is present in few of the predicted ice stream areas, and where Halton Till is present, it has no mega-scale lineations. In sum, the weight of evidence unequivocally argues against a converging ice-stream process model for the ORM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".