Formation of Low-Centered Ice-Wedge Polygons and Their Orthogonal Systems: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ice wedges, which are ubiquitous in permafrost areas, play a significant role in the evolution of permafrost landscapes, influencing the topography and hydrology of these regions. In this paper, we combine a detailed multi-generational, interdisciplinary, and international literature review along with our own field experiences to explore the development of low-centered ice-wedge polygons and their orthogonal networks. Low-centered polygons, a type of ice-wedge polygonal ground characterized by elevated rims and lowered wet central basins, are critical indicators of permafrost conditions. The formation of these features has been subject to numerous inconsistencies and debates since their initial description in the 1800s. The development of elevated rims is attributed to different processes, such as soil bulging due to ice-wedge growth, differential frost heave, and the accumulation of vegetation and peat. The transition of low-centered polygons to flat-centered, driven by processes like peat accumulation, aggradational ice formation, and frost heave in polygon centers, has been generally overlooked. Low-centered polygons occur in deltas, on floodplains, and in drained-lake basins. There, they are often arranged in orthogonal networks that comprise a complex system. The prevailing explanation of their formation does not match with several field studies that practically remain unnoticed or ignored. By analyzing controversial subjects, such as the degradational or aggradational nature of low-centered polygons and the formation of orthogonal ice-wedge networks, this paper aims to clarify misconceptions and present a cohesive overview of lowland terrain ice-wedge dynamics. The findings emphasize the critical role of ice wedges in shaping Arctic permafrost landscapes and their vulnerability to ongoing climatic and landscape changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".