MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979478598 · doi:10.3189/172756405781812871

An empirical firn-densification model comprising ice lenses

2005· article· en· W1979478598 on OpenAlexaffabout
Niels Reeh, David Fisher, Roy M. Koerner, Henrik Clausen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirnMeltwaterGeologySnowSnowpackIce sheetArcticGreenland ice sheetIce coreElevation (ballistics)Accumulation zoneSea iceGeomorphologyClimatologyIce streamCryosphereOceanographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the past, several empirical firn-densification models have been developed fitted to measured density–depth profiles from Greenland and Antarctica. These models do not specifically deal with refreezing of meltwater in the firn. Ice lenses are usually indirectly taken into account by choosing a suitable value of the surface snow density. In the present study, a simple densification model is developed that specifically accounts for the content of ice lenses in the snowpack. An annual layer is considered to be composed of an ice fraction and a firn fraction. It is assumed that all meltwater formed at the surface in one year will refreeze in the corresponding annual layer, and that no additional melting or refreezing occurs in deeper layers. With this assumption, further densification is solely controlled by compaction of the firn fraction of the annual layer. Comparison of modelled and observed depth–density profiles from Canadian Arctic ice-core sites with large melting–refreezing percentages shows good agreement. The model is also used to estimate the long-term surface elevation change in interior Greenland that will result from temperature-driven changes of density–depth profiles. These surface elevation changes reflect a volume change of the ice sheet with no corresponding change of mass, i.e. a volume change that does not influence global sea level.

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 score0.321

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations60
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207