MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414946919 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-3456

Ice thickness of Comox and Kokanee Glaciers, British Columbia, determined through relative gravity surveys

2025· preprint· en· W4414946919 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Forbes, Lucinda J. Leonard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectGlacierRadarCryosphereGlaciologyGround-penetrating radar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Ice thickness data are sparse or lacking for many glaciers worldwide, making it difficult to track changes in ice volume due to ongoing climate change. In this study, we collect and model relative gravity survey data, to provide the first estimate of ice thickness for the retreating Comox Glacier, a historically important source of freshwater for eastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. We validate our approach by carrying out a similar analysis across the Kokanee Glacier, for comparison with recent ice penetrating radar results. Modelling of the Bouguer gravity anomaly across each glacier provides an average inferred ice thickness of 42 ± 4 m across a 450 m transect of Comox Glacier, and 50 ± 3 m across a 220 m transect of Kokanee Glacier, consistent with previous measurements. Future repeat surveys will enable monitoring of ice thickness changes over time. Compared to other methods, gravity surveying offers a lower cost and logistically simpler alternative for the collection of ice thickness data on glaciers worldwide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→