A GIS‐based multi‐proxy analysis of the evolution of subglacial dynamics of the Quebec–Labrador ice dome, northeastern Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The glacial records of the inner‐core regions of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) document complex yet coherent patterns reflecting ice‐sheet change (e.g. ice‐divide migration), providing unique insights into past glacial conditions. This study develops a conceptual model of subglacial dynamics evolution within a major ice‐dispersal centre of the LIS in northeastern Quebec, Canada using a GIS‐based analysis of the surficial geologic record. Multiple proxies of subglacial conditions (subglacial streamlined landforms, lake density and lake area over thin drift/bedrock) were analysed through grid‐overlay techniques and then classified based on different proxy variables ranging from highly mobile warm‐based to immobile cold‐based conditions. An additional proxy (till blanket) was used to identify areas of thick till deposition, but with few proxies (few lake or landform metrics). Based on local ice‐flow reconstructions, the most ‘relict’ glacial terrain zone (GTZ1) has warm‐based conditions over 66% of its area and is remarkably well preserved, suggesting laterally extensive warm‐based conditions during the oldest identified ice‐flow phase. This relict glacial terrain is partially overprinted by two subsequent ice‐flow phases in spatially restricted zones in the northeast (73% warm‐based), east‐central (41% warm‐based), and northwest (33% warm‐based) of the study area. A zone of more sluggish conditions (only 3% warm‐based) was identified in the highlands at the centre of the study area, characterized by thin till cover, few landforms, yet with large patches of relatively abundant small lakes, indicative of areal scouring. No clear evidence of sustained cold‐based conditions (i.e. high chemical index of alteration values or high 10 Be abundances) was found in the study area. These results suggest that warm‐based conditions (active erosion and/or deposition) were uniformly widespread during the earliest ice‐flow phase, later becoming more spatially restricted with broader sluggish ice conditions. These spatially restricted regions of warm‐based subglacial regimes were likely controlled by surrounding and down‐flow ice streaming. © 2020 The Authors. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".