MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409648213 · doi:10.1017/jog.2025.37

Retreat and frontal ablation rates for Alaska’s lake-terminating glaciers: Investigating potential physical controls with implications for future stability

2025· article· en· W4409648213 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noah G. Caldwell, William H. Armstrong, Robert McNabb, Ellyn M. Enderlin, Daniel McGrath, Brianna Rick, Jacob J. Hanson, L. Baker Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgeAppalachian State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyGlacierAblationPhysical geographyGeomorphologyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Globally, glaciers are changing in response to climate warming, with those that terminate in water often undergoing the most rapid change. In Alaska and northwest Canada, proglacial lakes have grown in number and size but their influence on glacier mass loss is unclear. We characterized the rates of retreat and mass loss through frontal ablation of 55 lake-terminating glaciers (>14 000 km 2) in the region using annual Landsat imagery from 1984 to 2021. We find a median retreat rate of 60 m a −1 (interquartile range = 35–89 m a −1 ) over 1984–2018 and a median loss of 0.04 Gt a −1 (0.01–0.15 Gt a −1 ) mass through frontal ablation over 2009–18. Summed over 2009–18, our study glaciers lost 6.1 Gt a −1 to frontal ablation. Analysis of bed profiles suggest that glaciers terminating in larger lakes and deeper water lose more mass to frontal ablation, and that the glaciers will remain lake-terminating for an average of 74 years (38–177 a). This work suggests that as more proglacial lakes form and as lakes become larger, enhanced frontal ablation could cause higher mass losses, which should be considered when projecting the future of lake-terminating glaciers.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207