MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987613981 · doi:10.1126/science.1057022

Space-Geodetic Constraints on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Fennoscandia

2001· article· en· W1987613981 on OpenAlexaff
G. A. Milne, J. L. Davis, J. X. Mitrovica, H. G. Scherneck, Jan M. Johansson, Martin Vermeer, Hannu Koivula

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-glacial reboundGeologyGeodetic datumGeodesyLithosphereGlobal Positioning SystemTectonicsTectonic upliftGlacial periodTide gaugeDeformation (meteorology)Sea levelGeophysicsSeismologyGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of Global Positioning System (GPS) data demonstrates that ongoing three-dimensional crustal deformation in Fennoscandia is dominated by glacial isostatic adjustment. Our comparison of these GPS observations with numerical predictions yields an Earth model that satisfies independent geologic constraints and bounds both the average viscosity in the upper mantle (5 x 10(20) to 1 x 10(21) pascal seconds) and the elastic thickness of the lithosphere (90 to 170 kilometers). We combined GPS-derived radial motions with Fennoscandian tide gauge records to estimate a regional sea surface rise of 2.1 +/- 0.3 mm/year. Furthermore, ongoing horizontal tectonic motions greater than approximately 1 mm/year are ruled out on the basis of the GPS-derived three-dimensional crustal velocity field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations370
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207