MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glacial isostatic adjustment on 3-D Earth models: a finite-volume formulation

2005· article· en· W2082355668 on OpenAlexafffund
Konstantin Latychev, J. X. Mitrovica, Jeroen Tromp, M. E. Tamisiea, Dimitri Komatitsch, Christina C. Christara

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAdolph C. and Mary Sprague Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California BerkeleyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyClassification of discontinuitiesDiscretizationGeodesyFinite volume methodRegular gridGridInterpolation (computer graphics)GeometryGeophysicsMathematicsMechanicsMathematical analysisPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe and present results from a finite-volume (FV) parallel computer code for forward modelling the Maxwell viscoelastic response of a 3-D, self-gravitating, elastically compressible Earth to an arbitrary surface load. We implement a conservative, control volume discretization of the governing equations using a tetrahedral grid in Cartesian geometry and a low-order, linear interpolation. The basic starting grid honours all major radial discontinuities in the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM), and the models are permitted arbitrary spatial variations in viscosity and elastic parameters. These variations may be either continuous or discontinuous at a set of grid nodes forming a 3-D surface within the (regional or global) modelling domain. In the second part of the paper, we adopt the FV methodology and a spherically symmetric Earth model to generate a suite of predictions sampling a broad class of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) data types (3-D crustal motions, long-wavelength gravity anomalies). These calculations, based on either a simple disc load history or a global Late Pleistocene ice load reconstruction (ICE-3G), are benchmarked against predictions generated using the traditional normal-mode approach to GIA. The detailed comparison provides a guide for future analyses (e.g. what grid resolution is required to obtain a specific accuracy?) and it indicates that discrepancies in predictions of 3-D crustal velocities less than 0.1 mm yr−1 are generally obtainable for global grids with ∼3 × 106 nodes; however, grids of higher resolution are required to predict large-amplitude (>1 cm yr−1) radial velocities in zones of peak post-glacial uplift (e.g. James bay) to the same level of absolute accuracy. We conclude the paper with a first application of the new formulation to a 3-D problem. Specifically, we consider the impact of mantle viscosity heterogeneity on predictions of present-day 3-D crustal motions in North America. In these tests, the lateral viscosity variation is constructed, with suitable scaling, from tomographic images of seismic S-wave heterogeneity, and it is characterized by approximately 2 orders of magnitude (peak-to-peak) lateral variations within the lower mantle and 1 order of magnitude variations in the bulk of the upper mantle (below the asthenosphere). We find that the introduction of 3-D viscosity structure has a profound impact on horizontal velocities; indeed, the magnitude of the perturbation (of order 1 mm yr−1) is as large as the prediction generated from the underlying (1-D) radial reference model and it far exceeds observational uncertainties currently being obtained from space-geodetic surveying. The relative impact of lateral viscosity variations on predicted radial motions is significantly smaller.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations199
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207