Present-day tilting of the Great Lakes region based on water level gauges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| July 01, 2005 Present-day tilting of the Great Lakes region based on water level gauges André Mainville; André Mainville 1Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division, 615 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E9, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Michael R. Craymer Michael R. Craymer 1Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division, 615 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E9, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information André Mainville 1Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division, 615 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E9, Canada Michael R. Craymer 1Natural Resources Canada, Geodetic Survey Division, 615 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E9, Canada Publisher: Geological Society of America Received: 23 Apr 2003 Revision Received: 01 Oct 2004 Accepted: 22 Oct 2004 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-2674 Print ISSN: 0016-7606 Geological Society of America GSA Bulletin (2005) 117 (7-8): 1070–1080. https://doi.org/10.1130/B25392.1 Article history Received: 23 Apr 2003 Revision Received: 01 Oct 2004 Accepted: 22 Oct 2004 First Online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation André Mainville, Michael R. Craymer; Present-day tilting of the Great Lakes region based on water level gauges. GSA Bulletin 2005;; 117 (7-8): 1070–1080. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B25392.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGSA Bulletin Search Advanced Search Abstract By using monthly mean water levels at 55 sites around the Great Lakes, a regional model of vertical crustal motion was computed for the region. In comparison with previous similar studies over the Great Lakes, 15 additional gauge sites, data from all seasons instead of the 4 summer months, and 8 additional years of data were used. All monthly water levels available between 1860 and 2000, as published by the U.S. National Ocean Survey and the Canadian Hydrographic Service, were used. For each lake basin, the vertical velocities of the gauge sites relative to each other were simultaneously computed, using the least-squares adjustment technique. Our algorithm solves for and removes a monthly bias common to all sites, as well as site-specific biases. It also properly weighs the input water levels, resulting in a realistic estimation of the uncertainties in tilting parameters. The relative velocities obtained for each lake were then combined to obtain relative velocities over the entire Great Lakes region. Finally, the gradient of the relative rates for the regional model was found to agree best with the ICE-3G global isostatic model of Tushingham and Peltier, whereas the ICE-4G gradients were too small around the Great Lakes. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".