Modelling permafrost distribution using the temperature at top of permafrost model in the boreal forest environment of Whatì, NT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current permafrost models in Canadian boreal forests are generally of low spatial resolution as they cover regional or continental scales. This study aims to understand the viability of creating a temperature at the top of permafrost (TTOP) model on a local scale in the boreal wetland environment of Whatì, Northwest Territories from short-term field-collected temperature data. The model utilizes independent variables of vegetation, topographic position index, and elevation, with the dependent variables being ground surface temperature collected from 60 ground temperature nodes and 1.5 m air temperature collected from 10 temperature stations. In doing this, the study investigates the relationship vegetation and disturbance have on ground temperature and permafrost distribution. The model predicts that 31% of the ground is underlain by permafrost, based on a mean annual temperature at TTOP of <0 °C. This model shows an accuracy of 62.5% when compared to cryotic assessment sites (CAS). Most inaccuracies, showing the limitations of the TTOP model, came from peat plateaus that had been burned in the most recent forest fire in 2014. These resulted in out-of-equilibrium permafrost and climatic conditions that TTOP cannot handle well. Commonly, permafrost mapping places Whatì in the extensive discontinuous zone, estimating that between 50% and 90% of the ground is underlain by permafrost. The study shows that a climatically driven TTOP model calibrated with CAS can be used to illustrate ground temperature heterogeneity from short-term data in boreal forest wetland environments. However, this approach likely underestimates permafrost extent and is perhaps not the best-suited modelling choice for near-surface permafrost, which is currently out of equilibrium with the current climate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".