MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108536690 · doi:10.1017/qua.2020.84

An investigation of the possibility of non-Laurentide ice stream contributions to Heinrich event 3

2020· article· en· W3108536690 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Velay‐Vitow, W. R. Peltier, G.R. Stuhne

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOceanographyGulf StreamIcebergIce streamIce sheetAntarctic sea iceArctic ice packSTREAMSForcing (mathematics)Sea iceIrish seaDrift iceClimatologyCryosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ocean floor sedimentological signature of Heinrich event 3 (H3) is markedly different from that of other Heinrich events that are known to have originated in Hudson Strait. It has therefore been suggested that the H3 contribution to iceberg flux may have been delivered by ice streams located in the eastern sector of the North Atlantic, from the Fennoscandian or British Isles ice sheets. To investigate this possibility and whether the instability involved may have been tidally induced, as seems to have been the case for H1, we consider several eastern Atlantic sector possibilities: a hypothetical Barents Sea ice stream, the Norwegian ice stream, and the Irish Sea ice stream. We find that the extremely high amplitude of the M2 tidal constituent in the western North Atlantic that appears to have forced H1 did not exist in the northeastern Atlantic. This suggests that, with one possible exception, if destabilized ice streams in this region did contribute to H3, tidal forcing was most probably not the cause. The single exception to this general conclusion may be the Irish Sea ice stream, and we comment on the probability of a contribution to H3 from this source.

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)0.002
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207