A Conceptual Model of the Deglaciation of Southern Rhode Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laurentide deglaciation in southern Rhode Island (RI) is characterized by the systematic retreat of two glacial lobes: the Central Rhode Island/Eastern Connecticut (CRI) lobe and the Narragansett Basin (NB) lobe. A conceptual model of the deglaciation of southern Rhode Island is offered to provide new insights about the mode and synchronicity of retreat and to better understand the interlobate depositional environment. The study area encompasses nine quadrangles, is bounded in the south by Block Island Sound and the east by Narragansett Bay the northwest by uplands in central RI and the upper Pawcatuck River Basin. Glacial retreat is inferred from the distribution of successive ice margin positions marked by moraines and morphosequences, and from topographic relationships of glacial lake deposits, lake spillways and ice dams.\nThis model shows that after the onset of de glaciation, 1) the ice sheet in southern New England may have undergone fluctuations resulting in the advance of both lobes at different times, 2) CRI lobe retreated rapidly north-northwest over uplands, thinned over low relief bedrock controlled topography and formed up-valley ice lobes, and 3) the NB lobe ice retreated more slowly as it occupied the deep bedrock valleys within the Narragansett structural basin. Ice recession from the terminal position probably began shortly after the ice sheet reached its maximum extent around 26 kyr BP (calendar years based on newly calibrated 10Be dates). The ice margin retreated to the Charlestown end moraine by 21 kyr BP. Although significant warming in this region did not occur until 15 kyr BP, the ice sheet began to retreat rapidly at 19 kyr BP. By 16 kyr BP, the active ice sheet had retreated from Rhode Island and by 11 kyr BP, it was in southern Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".