MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092759556 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggv051

Reappraisal of the Ångerman River decay time estimate and its application to determine uncertainty in Earth viscosity structure

2015· article· en· W2092759556 on OpenAlexaff
Maaria Nordman, Glenn A. Milne, Lev Tarasov

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPost-glacial reboundRange (aeronautics)Sea levelIce sheetClimatologyPhysical geographyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relative sea level histories from previously glaciated areas have been used to study Earth rheology and ice sheet evolution during the last glacial cycle. The analysis of postglacial decay times has been used to place estimates on Earth viscosity structure that are relatively independent of uncertainty in the local ice history. Reconstructed sea levels from Ångermanland, Sweden have been commonly adopted for this purpose. We have assessed and compiled an updated relative sea level curve for this region, combining both varve-dated and radiocarbon dated index points. We fitted an exponential curve to the observations, taking into account estimates of eustatic sea level rise, elevation uncertainties as well as the geographical spread of the data sites to arrive at a decay time range (2σ) of 4.2–4.9 kyr for the whole record length (0–8 kyr) and 4.2–6.2 when 0–7 kyr fits are included. We computed model decay times using a large suite of over 900 ice and earth model combinations based on over 400 three-layer Earth viscosity models and more than 30 ice history reconstructions. Based on these extensive results, we confirm that decay time estimates are relatively independent of the regional ice model (at least within the range of ice chronology uncertainties) and so this data parametrization provides a relatively robust measure of Earth viscosity structure. We find that the observational constraints listed above are satisfied by 29 (8 kyr record) and 52 (7 and 8 kyr record) of the viscosity models considered. These subsets define uncertainty ranges in upper and lower mantle viscosity that are interdependent (Fig. 5). Consistent with previous analyses, we find that the observational decay time estimate does not provide useful constraints on model lithospheric thickness (within the range explored; 46–146 km).

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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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