Continental-Scale Machine-Learning Classification of Arctic Glacial Landscapes using Simple Morphometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Landscapes formed by glacial erosion have previously been classified based on qualitative interpretation of geomorphic evidence, using aerial photography and field studies. In the current era of high‐resolution elevation data, limited attempts have been made to improve these classifications using quantitative measurements of landscape form (i.e., morphometry). This is despite landscapes of glacial erosion containing a wealth of information relating to past ice behavior, which can in turn aid our understanding of contemporary and future ice dynamics. This study introduces a new classification method which: (a) has a robust quantitative basis, allowing it to be reproducibly applied to a range of land surfaces; and (b) leverages the power of machine learning to interpret patterns at scale and provide classification probability estimates. The method uses intuitive morphometrics calculated from digital elevation models within a random forest machine‐learning model to classify formerly glaciated regions of Arctic Canada and Greenland. The results reveal regional and local variability in glacial erosional style, including distinct populations of scoured landscapes in ice‐free parts of Greenland compared to Canada, and wider preservation of non‐glacial erosional signatures than previously mapped. Our metrics and classification results show that the degree of glacial modification of the landscape is likely linked to factors including pre‐glacial topography, climate (latitude), long‐term ice configuration, proximity to ice divides, and geology. Our findings demonstrate the value of simple morphometrics for extracting information from large elevation data sets and provide a quantitative tool for interpreting landscapes whose glacial history is poorly constrained.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".