Neural Networks Applied to Estimating Subglacial Topography and Glacier Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To predict the rate and consequences of shrinkage of the earth’s mountain glaciers and ice caps, it is necessary to have improved regional-scale models of mountain glaciation and better knowledge of the subglacial topography upon which these models must operate. The problem of estimating glacier ice thickness is addressed by developing an artificial neural network (ANN) approach that uses calculations performed on a digital elevation model (DEM) and on a mask of the present-day ice cover. Because suitable data from real glaciers are lacking, the ANN is trained by substituting the known topography of ice-denuded regions adjacent to the ice-covered regions of interest, and this known topography is hidden by imagining it to be ice-covered. For this training it is assumed that the topography is flooded to various levels by horizontal lake-like glaciers. The validity of this assumption and the estimation skill of the trained ANN is tested by predicting ice thickness for four 50 km × 50 km regions that are currently ice free but that have been partially glaciated using a numerical ice dynamics model. In this manner, predictions of ice thickness based on the neural network can be compared to the modeled ice thickness and the performance of the neural network can be evaluated and improved. From the results, thus far, it is found that ANN depth estimates can yield plausible subglacial topography with a representative rms elevation error of ±70 m and remarkably good estimates of ice volume.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".