MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160527681 · doi:10.1002/ppp.2115

Three‐dimensional investigation of an open‐ and a closed‐system Pingo in northwestern Canada

2021· article· en· W3160527681 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julius Kunz, Christof Kneisel

Bibliographic record

VenuePermafrost and Periglacial Processes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsGeologyPermafrostGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present study presents three‐dimensional investigations of a hydrostatic pingo in the Mackenzie Delta region and a hydraulic pingo in the Ogilvie Mountains and contributes to a better understanding about the internal structures of the two pingo types. A combined approach using quasi‐three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography, ground‐penetrating radar and frost probing allowed a clear delineation of frozen and unfrozen areas in the subsurface. At the hydrostatic pingo a massive ice core as well as a surrounding talik could be detected, but the location of the ice core and the talik differs from previous published assumptions. In contrast to acknowledged theory, at our site the massive ice core is not located in the center of the pingo but at the western edge, whereas the eastern flank is underlain by a talik, which surrounds the massive ice core. At the hydraulic pingo, the expected internal structure could be confirmed and the pathway of upwelling water could also be detected. The combined approach of the applied methods represents the first known three‐dimensional geoelectrical investigation of pingos and provides new insights into the internal structure and architecture of the two different pingo types. The chosen approach allows further conclusions on the formation of these permafrost‐affected landforms.

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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePermafrost and Periglacial ProcessesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207