MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230528978 · doi:10.4095/292115

Lithalsa distribution, morphology and landscape associations in the Great Slave Lowlands, Northwest Territories

2012· report· en· W4230528978 on OpenAlexaffabout
C W Stevens, S A Wolfe, Adrian J. Gaanderse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyMorphology (biology)Distribution (mathematics)ArchaeologyPhysical geographyCartographyGeologyPaleontologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of ice-rich terrain is an important geotechnical consideration for the engineering of northern infrastructure. Lithalsas represent one form of ice-rich terrain that can be identified on the basis of surface geomorphology and cryostratigraphy. A total of 1,777 ice-rich lithalsas were mapped over 3,680 km2 using monochromatic stereo-pair airphotos, across the Great Slave Lowlands and Uplands, NWT, Canada. Boreholes indicate lithalsas in this region consist of ice-rich silt and clay, with segregated ice lenses up to 10 cm thick. Three distinct morphologies are recognized from LiDAR bare-earth DEMs including; (i) circular, (ii) linear and (iii) crescentic plan-view shapes, which exhibit hill-like or ridge-like forms up to 8 m in height and more than 100 m in width. The linear relationship between lithalsa height and width indicates that 1 cm of vertical growth may be accompanied by 15 cm of lateral growth at the peripheral edges. Lithalsa distribution is skewed towards lower elevations, with 97.7% located within the Great Slave Lowlands. These features predominately occur adjacent to water bodies and follow the regional distribution of frost susceptible glaciolacustrine silt and clay. Landscape associations suggest lithalsa formation is controlled by sedimentological, thermal and hydrological conditions. This Open File reports the first account of lithalsas within this region.

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)0.001
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207