Characteristic periglacial topography: Multi‐scale hypsometric analysis of cryoplanated uplands in eastern Beringia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract General geomorphometry is concerned with the geometric form of the continuous land surface and can be useful for identifying topographic “signatures.” Hypsometry has found numerous applications in several subfields of geomorphology, but has not been used extensively in published periglacial work. Hypsometric analysis was applied in this study to several unglaciated and glaciated locales in Alaska's Yukon‐Tanana Upland and Indian River Upland physiographic sections, extensive areas of eastern Beringia in which cryoplanation landforms are ubiquitous. Never‐glaciated terrain in this region has a hypsometric signature distinctly different from that of glaciated areas within sample areas ranging in size from 0.25 to 100 km 2 . Cryoplanated terrain exhibits a distinctive convex‐upward hypsometric signature, a reflection of a greater proportion of the reference solid (land mass) remaining intact than in typical mature fluvial or glaciated terrain. Because the elevational position of cryoplanation terraces is slightly below and parallel with snowline position it is, in effect, climatically determined from above, and localized planar surfaces develop near that level. Comparison with terrain in the southwestern USA demonstrates that substantial differences also exist between the hypsometry of upland periglacial terrain in eastern Beringia and that of inselbergs and pediments in warm‐desert geomorphic landscapes, casting doubt on a suggestion that cryoplanation terraces and cryopediments in high‐latitude mountains could be inherited from past intervals of subtropical desert conditions We conclude that characteristic periglacial erosional topography exists in unglaciated areas of Beringia and can be detected and described quantitatively through objective methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".