Uncertainty estimates of a GRACE inversion modelling technique over Greenland using a simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low spatial resolution of GRACE causes leakage, where signals in one location spread out into nearby regions. Because of this leakage, using simple techniques such as basin averages may result in an incorrect estimate of the true mass change in a region. A fairly simple least squares inversion technique can be used to more specifically localize mass changes into a pre-determined set of basins of uniform internal mass distribution. However, the accuracy of these higher resolution basin mass amplitudes has not been determined, nor is it known how the distribution of the chosen basins affects the results. We use a simple ‘truth’ model over Greenland as an example case, to estimate the uncertainties of this inversion method and expose those design parameters which may result in an incorrect high-resolution mass distribution. We determine that an appropriate level of smoothing (300–400 km) and process noise (0.30 cm2 of water) gets the best results. The trends of the Greenland internal basins and Iceland can be reasonably estimated with this method, with average systematic errors of 3.5 cm yr−1 per basin. The largest mass losses found from GRACE RL04 occur in the coastal northwest (−19.9 and −33.0 cm yr−1) and southeast (−24.2 and −27.9 cm yr−1), with small mass gains (+1.4 to +7.7 cm yr−1) found across the northern interior. Acceleration of mass change is measurable at the 95 per cent confidence level in four northwestern basins, but not elsewhere in Greenland. Due to an insufficiently detailed distribution of basins across internal Canada, the trend estimates of Baffin and Ellesmere Islands are expected to be incorrect due to systematic errors caused by the inversion technique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".