MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3166257091 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-10441

Effects of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment on Surface Topography, Flow Accumulation,  Stream Power & Sediment Transport Indexes in the Canadian Prairies

2021· article· en· W3166257091 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Wu, Tanghua Li, Holger Steffen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStream powerPost-glacial reboundErosionStructural basinSedimentDrainage basinGeomorphologyGlacial periodHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) induced by the melting of the Pleistocene Ice Sheets causes differential land uplift, relative sea level and geoid changes. Thus, GIA in North America may affect water flow-accumulation and the rate of sedimentation and erosion in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB), but so far this has not been well investigated. Our aim here is to use surface topography in the SSRB and simple models of surface water flow to compute flow-accumulation, wetness index, stream power index and sediment transport index - the latter two affect the rates of erosion and sedimentation. Since the river basin became virtually ice-free around 8 ka BP, we shall study the effects of GIA induced differential land uplift during the last 8 ka on these indexes. Using the present-day surface topography ETOPO1 model, we see that the stream power index and sediment transport index in the SSRB may not be high enough to alter the surface topography significantly today and probably during the last 8 ka except for places around the Rocky Mountains. The effect of using 1 and 3 arc minute grid resolution of the ETOPO1 model does not significantly alter the value of these indexes. However, we note that using 1 arc minute grid is much more computationally intensive, so only a smaller area of the SSRB can be included in the computation. Next, we assume that sedimentation and erosion did not occur in the SSRB during the last 8 ka BP, and the change in surface topography is only due to GIA induced differential uplift. We use land uplift predicted by a large number of GIA models to study the changes in stream power & sediment transport indexes in the last 8 ka BP. Our base GIA model is ICE6G_C(VM5a). Then we investigate the effects of using uplift predicted by other GIA models that can still fit the observed relative sea level (RSL), uplift rate and gravity-rate-of-change data in North America reasonably well. These alternate GIA models have lateral heterogeneity in the mantle and lithosphere included – in particular we test those that give the largest differential uplift in the SSRB. We found that the effect of these other GIA earth models is not large on the stream power & sediment transport indexes. Finally, we investigate the sensitivity of these indexes on the ice models that are consistent with GIA observations. The results of this study will be useful to our understanding of water flow accumulation, sedimentation and erosion in the past, present and future and for water resource management in North America.

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)0.001
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→