MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226308984 · doi:10.4095/321440

Reconnaissance surficial geology, Arctic Sound, Nunavut, NTS 76-N

2022· report· en· W4226308984 on OpenAlexaffabout
D E Kerr

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOutwash plainMoraineMeltwaterBedrockLandformDrumlinArcticFluvialGlacial periodGlacierGeomorphologySound (geography)DeglaciationOceanographyPhysical geographyIce streamSea iceCryosphereGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic Sound map area consists primarily of glacially scoured bedrock, minor till in the southwest, and postglacial marine sediments in coastal lowlands and inland along river valleys. The till deposits are cut to bedrock by subglacial meltwater corridors defined by eskers and other glaciofluvial sediments. Glacial lakes occupied the James River valley where retreating or stagnant ice blocked drainage to the east. Glaciolacustrine deltas record falling lake levels, from 310 m to 290 m and 260 m elevation. Striations and streamlined landforms indicate ice flow to the north-northwest, and later crosscutting relationships recording minor variations locally. Orientation of minor moraines, eskers, and outwash plains suggest ice recession was primarily southeastward. A series of small glaciomarine deltas following a northwest-southeast trend, and postglacial marine deltas and fine-grained sediments, reach elevations of 210 m in the northwest and 200 m in the southeast. Isostatic rebound caused marine regression, forming raised beaches from 210 m elevation to current sea level.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.013

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→