Criteria to discriminate between proglacial and paraglacial environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the original meaning of “areas peripheral to Pleistocene ice sheets and glaciers” (Lozinski 1909) to one which stresses the distinctive processes of freeze-thaw and permafrost formation. In spite of the comment by Worsley (2004) that the term periglacial has no universally accepted definition, there are really only two options that are in common use: a) an environment of frequent freeze-thaw cycles and deep seasonal freezing (encompassing about 35% of the earth’s continental surface and/or b) a permafrost environment (only 20%). The international journal Permafrost and Periglacial Processes implies the broader definition. We therefore conclude that the definition of periglacial is not contentious. Not only are we comfortable with the idea of periglacial processes, but equally there is agreement over the approximate extent of past and present periglacial environments, depending on whether the narrower or broader definition above is used. The situation is not so clear in the context of the terms “proglacial” and “paraglacial”, especially since the publication of a major paper on paraglacial geomorphology (Ballantyne 2002a). French (2007) has a nice discussion on this issue in which he notes that the proglacial environment, which refers specifically to ice-marginal conditions, is a periglacial environment in the original sense of Lozinski. Proglacial systems, sediment-landform associations and landform assemblages
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".