MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479962539 · doi:10.3189/172756409787769753

Glacier changes in Alaska: can mass-balance models explain GRACE mascon trends?

2009· article· en· W1479962539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. A. Arendt, S. B. Luthcke, Regine Hock

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGlacierPrecipitationSeries (stratigraphy)ClimatologyGeologyElevation (ballistics)Balance (ability)Glacier mass balanceRange (aeronautics)Environmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeomorphologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Temperature and precipitation data from three weather stations in the St Elias Mountains of Alaska and northwestern Canada were used to drive one-dimensional (1-D) (elevation-dependent) and 0-D degree-day mass-balance models. Model outputs were optimized against a 10 day resolution time series of mass variability during 2003–07 obtained from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mass concentration (mascon) solutions. The models explained 52–60% of the variance in the GRACE time series. Modelled mass variations matched the phase of the GRACE observations, and all optimized model parameters were within the range of values determined from conventional mass-balance and meteorological observations. We describe a framework for selecting appropriate weather stations and mass-balance models to represent glacier variations of large regions. There is potential for extending these calibrated mass-balance models forwards or backwards in time to construct mass-balance time series outside of the GRACE measurement window.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GlaciologySame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207