Misidentified subglacial lake beneath the Devon Ice Cap, Canadian Arctic: a new interpretation from seismic and electromagnetic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In 2018 the first subglacial lake in the Canadian Arctic was proposed to exist beneath the Devon Ice Cap, based on the analysis of airborne radar data. Here, we report a new interpretation of the subglacial material beneath the Devon Ice Cap, supported by data acquired from multiple surface-based geophysical methods in 2022. The geophysical data recorded included 9 km of active-source seismic-reflection profiles, seven transient electromagnetic (TEM) soundings, and 17 magnetotellurics (MT) stations. These surface-based geophysical datasets were collected above the inferred locations of the subglacial lakes and show no evidence for the presence of subglacial water. The acoustic impedance of the subglacial material, estimated from the seismic data, is 9.49 ± 1.92 × 106 kg m−2 s−1, comparable to consolidated or frozen sediment. The resistivity models obtained by inversion of both the TEM and MT measurements show the presence of highly resistive rock layers (1000–100 000 Ω m) directly beneath the ice. Re-evaluation of the airborne reflectivity data shows that the radar attenuation rates were likely overestimated, leading to an overestimation of the basal reflectivity in the original radar studies. Here, we derive new radar attenuation rates using the temperature- and chemistry-dependent Arrhenius equation, and when applied to correct the returned bed power, the bed power does not meet the basal reflectivity threshold expected over subglacial water. Thus, the radar interpretation is now consistent with the seismic and electromagnetic observations of dry or frozen, non-conductive basal material.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".