Transferring Cryosphere Knowledge between Mountains Globally: A Case Study of Western Canadian Mountains, the European Alps and the Scandes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Permafrost is present in mountains globally, yet most research has been focussed in the small area covered by the European Alps. This paper presents a method for comparing regional climates at a coarse scale to highlight similarities and differences between the European Alps and the Scandes to western Canadian mountain regions with permafrost. Climate variables from the ERA5 reanalysis relevant to mountain permafrost are averaged over the 1986–2005 period and compared. This helps to understand where permafrost conditions can be compared and where new research is needed. In this application, we conclude that a direct transfer of knowledge about ground temperature regimes and spatial patterns from the Scandes and Alps to western Canada is inappropriate because (1) the areas in western Canada receive more radiation than those in the Scandes, and less than in the Alps, (2) the areas in western Canada are more continental than the Scandes and the Alps, (3) the areas in western Canada extend into much colder conditions that the Scandes and the Alps, and (4) overlap in climatic variables is concentrated in small areas. Further research is needed to understand permafrost in mountains of western Canada.Despite the imperfections of reanalysis products, they present a unique and homogeneous data source for the remote and sparsely measured cryosphere regions. As such, this method can better inform the transfer of cryosphere knowledge between mountains globally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".