MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099029775

Annals qf Glaciology21 1995 ~ International Glaciological Society Climatic-change implications from long-term (1823-1994) ice records for the Laurentian Great Lakes

2015· article· en· W7099029775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayAnnalsLittle ice ageClimate changeHistorical recordSpring (device)Ice caps
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT. Long-term ice records (1823-1994) from six sites in different parts of the Laurentian Great Lakes region were used to show the type and general timing of climatic changes throughout the region. The general timing of both freeze-up and ice loss varies and is driven by local air temperatures, adjacent water bodies and mixing, and site morphometry. Grand Traverse Bay and Buffalo Harbor represent deeper-water environments affected by mixing of off-shore waters; Chequamegon Bay, Menominee, Lake Mendota, and Toronto Harbor represent relatively shallow-water, protected environments. Freeze-up dates gradually became later and ice-loss dates gradually earlier from the start of records to the 1890s in both environments, marking the end of the "Little Ice Age". After this, freeze-up dates remained relatively constant, suggesting little change in early-winter air temperatures during the 20th century. Ice-loss dates at Grand Traverse Bay and Buffalo Harbor (but not at the other sites) became earlier during the 1940s and 1970s and became later during the 1960s. The global warming of the 1980s was marked by a trend toward earlier ice-loss dates in both environments.

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)0.001
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 score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology→French-language works237,207→