MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026655157 · doi:10.1002/ppp.2051

The distribution and dynamics of aufeis in permafrost regions

2020· article· en· W3026655157 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy Ensom, Olga Makarieva, Peter Morse, D. L. Kane, Владимир Романович Алексеев, Philip Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenuePermafrost and Periglacial Processes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaWilfrid Laurier UniversityGovernment of Northwest Territories
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchW. Garfield Weston Foundation
KeywordsPermafrostClimate changeScale (ratio)Physical geographyTerminologyEnvironmental scienceDistribution (mathematics)Field (mathematics)Earth scienceGeologyClimatologyGeographyCartographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aufeis, also known as an icing or naled, is an accumulation of ice that forms primarily during winter when water is expelled onto frozen ground or ice surfaces and freezes in layers. Process‐oriented aufeis research initially expanded in the 20th century, but recent interest in changing hydrological conditions in permafrost regions has rejuvenated this field. Despite its societal relevance, the controls on aufeis distribution and dynamics are not well defined and this impedes projections of variation in aufeis size and distribution expected to accompany climate change. This paper reviews the physical controls on aufeis development, current broad‐scale aufeis distribution and anticipated change, and approaches to aufeis investigation. We propose an adjustment to terminology to better distinguish between the formation process and resulting ice bodies, a clarification of the aufeis classification approach based on source water, and a size threshold for broad‐scale aufeis inventory to facilitate collaborative research. We identify additional objectives for future research including advancing process knowledge at fine spatial scales, describing broad‐scale distribution using current remote sensing capabilities, and improving our understanding and predictive capacity over the interactions between aufeis and landscape‐scale permafrost, hydrogeological, geotectonic, and climate conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePermafrost and Periglacial ProcessesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207