MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393337803 · doi:10.1029/2023gl105578

Shaking up Assumptions: Earthquakes Have Rarely Triggered Andean Glacier Lake Outburst Floods

2024· article· en· W4393337803 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanne L. Wood, Stephan Harrison, Ryan Wilson, Adam Emmer, Jeffrey S. Kargel, Simon J. Cook, Neil F. Glasser, John M. Reynolds, Dan H. Shugar, Christian Yarlequé

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGlacierGeologyPermafrostNatural hazardClimate changeClimatologyHazardPhysical geographyOceanographyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the world’s glaciers recede in response to a warming atmosphere, a change in the magnitude and frequency of related hazards is expected. Among the most destructive hazards are glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs), and their future evolution is concerning for local populations and sustainable development policy. Central to this is a better understanding of triggers. There is a long‐standing assumption that earthquakes are a major GLOF trigger, and seismic activity is consistently included as a key hazard assessment criterion. Here, we provide the first empirical evidence that this assumption is largely incorrect. Focusing on the Tropical Andes, we show that, of 59 earthquakes (1900–2021) the effects of which intersect with known glacier lakes, only one has triggered GLOFs. We argue that, to help develop climate resilient protocols, the focus for future assessments should be on understanding other key GLOF drivers, such as thawing permafrost and underlying structural geology.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→