MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404263679 · doi:10.1139/as-2023-0065

Rock glacier inventory and predictive modeling in the Mackenzie Mountains: predicting rock glacier likelihood with a generalized additive model

2024· article· en· W4404263679 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rabecca Thiessen, Philip P. Bonnaventure, Caitlin Lapalme

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlacierGeologyRock glacierGeomorphologyPhysical geographyGlacier mass balanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rock glaciers have been the subject of extensive research in recent years due to their potential to serve as indicators of past and present climate conditions and their potential impacts on water resources. Location and descriptive rock glacier data within the Mackenzie Mountains were used to build a rock glacier inventory that will serve as a valuable resource for future research and monitoring efforts. Additionally, this study maps the likelihood of rock glacier presence using extracted variables in a generalized additive model (GAM). The model incorporates attribute data, including potential incoming solar radiation (PISR), topographic position index (TPI), slope, elevation, and lithology as controls for rock glacier development. Topographic data were compiled for three study regions of the Mackenzie Mountains from a 30 m digital elevation model (DEM). The analysis of the GAM showed that the most significant explanatory variables were PISR, elevation, slope, and TPI. The GAM model had an accuracy of 0.87 with a sensitivity of 0.92. This study provides important insights into the controls, distribution, and dynamics of rock glaciers in the Mackenzie Mountains, as well as both the limitations and the potential of statistical models in predicting their occurrence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207