MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413699067 · doi:10.1017/jog.2025.10084

Surge history and dynamics of Fisher Glacier, Yukon, 1948–2022

2025· article· en· W4413699067 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabriel Partington, Luke Copland, Benoît Lauzon, Dorota Medrzycka, Brittany Main, William Kochtitzky, Christine F. Dow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsYukon UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks CanadaArcticNetUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsGeologyGlacierSurgeTidewater glacier cyclePhysical geographyOceanographyClimatologyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Remotely sensed datasets indicate that Fisher Glacier underwent two surges since 1948: during approximately 1969–72 and 2013–16. These were characterized by an advanced terminus position (terminus-wide average advance 571 ± 143 m from 1963 to 1972 and 868 ± 8 m from 2014 to 2017), intense surface crevassing (up to >30 km up-glacier from the terminus during both surges), high surface velocities and a down-glacier transfer of mass. The intervening quiescent phase lasted for 40 years, during which velocities were generally low (<50 m a −1 ), but underwent a slow multidecadal increase starting around 1985, spreading from the middle of the glacier. A pre-surge buildup phase beginning around 2008 resulted in velocities of up to ∼200 m a −1 . The active phase of the surge initiated in winter 2013/14, with velocities of up to 1500 m a −1 propagating both up- and down-glacier from the mid-glacier region. In July 2016, the surge rapidly terminated within a period of ∼1 month. Characterized by a rapid onset and termination, but also displaying a multidecadal acceleration prior to the surge, the cause of Fisher Glacier’s surges may be best explained by a unifying framework such as the enthalpy balance theory.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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