Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Ground ice maps at circumpolar or hemispherical scales offer generalised depictions of abundance across broad geographic regions. In this paper, the effect of surficial geology mapping scale on modelled ground ice abundance is examined in the Slave Geological Province of the Canadian Shield, a region where the geological and glacial legacy has produced a landscape with significant variation in surface cover. Existing model routines from the Ground ice map of Canada (GIMC) were used with a 1:125 000 scale regional surficial geology compilation and compared to the national outputs, which are based on surficial geology at 1:5 000 000 scale. Overall, the regional scale modelling predicts much more ground ice than the GIMC due to greater representation of unconsolidated sediments in the region. Improved modelling accuracy is indicated by comparison of outputs to available empirical datasets due to improved representation of the inherent regional heterogeneity in surficial geology. The results demonstrate that the GIMC significantly underestimates the abundance and distribution of ground ice over Canadian Shield terrain. In areas with limited information on ground ice, regional-scale modelling may provide useful reconnaissance-level information to help guide field-based investigations required for planning infrastructure development. The use of current small-scale ground ice mapping in risk or cost assessments relating to permafrost thaw may significantly influence accuracy of outputs in areas like the Canadian Shield where surficial materials range from bedrock to frost-susceptible deposits over relatively short distances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.222 | 0.166 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".