MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017253669 · doi:10.1017/jog.2020.22

Explaining mass balance and retreat dichotomies at Taku and Lemon Creek Glaciers, Alaska

2020· article· en· W3017253669 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher McNeil, S. O’Neel, Michael G. Loso, Mauri Pelto, Louis Sass, Emily H. Baker, Seth Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsGlacierGlacier mass balanceGeologyPhysical geographyTidewater glacier cycleClimate changeBalance (ability)SurgeClimatologyGeomorphologyGeographyOceanographyIce calving

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We reanalyzed mass balance records at Taku and Lemon Creek Glaciers to better understand the relative roles of hypsometry, local climate and dynamics as mass balance drivers. Over the 1946–2018 period, the cumulative mass balances diverged. Tidewater Taku Glacier advanced and gained mass at an average rate of +0.25 ± 0.28 m w.e. a –1 , contrasting with retreat and mass loss of −0.60 ± 0.15 m w.e. a −1 at land-terminating Lemon Creek Glacier. The uniform influence of regional climate is demonstrated by strong correlations among annual mass balance and climate data. Regional warming trends forced similar statistically significant decreases in surface mass balance after 1989: −0.83 m w.e. a –1 at Taku Glacier and −0.81 m w.e. a –1 at Lemon Creek Glacier. Divergence in cumulative mass balance arises from differences in glacier hypsometry and local climate. Since 2013 negative mass balance and glacier-wide thinning prevailed at Taku Glacier. These changes initiated terminus retreat, which could increase dramatically if calving begins. The future mass balance trajectory of Taku Glacier hinges on dynamics, likely ending the historic dichotomy between these glaciers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207