MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083828247 · doi:10.3189/172756403781816130

Basal melt beneath Whillans Ice Stream and Ice Streams A and C, West Antarctica

2003· article· en· W2083828247 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ian Joughin, Sławek Tulaczyk, Hermann Engelhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCanadian Space AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyIce streamSTREAMSMeltwaterMelt pondFast iceIce divideIce shelfAntarctic sea iceIce sheetGeomorphologyPancake iceTributaryArctic ice packIce wedgeSea iceCryosphereOceanographyGlacier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have used a recently derived map of the velocity of Whillans Ice Stream and Ice Streams A and C, West Antarctica, to help estimate basal melt. Ice temperature was modeled with a simple vertical advection–diffusion equation,“tuned” to match temperature profiles. We find that most of the melt occurs beneath the tributaries, where larger basal shear stresses and thicker ice favor greater melt (e.g. 10–20mm a −1 ). The occurrence of basal freezing is predicted beneath much of the ice plains of Ice Stream C andWhillans Ice Stream. Modeled melt rates for when Ice Stream C was active suggest there was enough meltwater generated in its tributaries to balance basal freezing on its ice plain. Net basal melt for Whillans Ice Stream is greater due to less steep basal temperature gradients. Modeled temperatures on Whillans Ice Stream, however, were constrained by a single temperature profile at UpB. Basal temperature gradients for Whillans branch 1 and Ice Stream A may have conditions more similar to those beneath Ice Streams C and D, in which case, there may not be sufficient melt to sustain motion. This would be consistent with the steady deceleration of Whillans Ice Stream over the last few decades.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207