MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110413095 · doi:10.1002/2015gl063769

GRACE gravity observations constrain Weichselian ice thickness in the Barents Sea

2015· article· en· W2110413095 on OpenAlexaff
Bart Root, Lev Tarasov, Wouter van der Wal

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsGeologyIce sheetCryosphereAntarctic sea icePost-glacial reboundSea iceClimatologyArctic ice packDrift iceIce divideAntarctic ice sheetIce streamIce-sheet modelFuture sea levelOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Barents Sea is subject to ongoing postglacial uplift since the melting of the Weichselian ice sheet that covered it. The regional ice sheet thickness history is not well known because there is only data at the periphery due to the locations of Franz Joseph Land, Svalbard, and Novaya Zemlya surrounding this paleo ice sheet. We show that the linear trend in the gravity rate derived from a decade of observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission can constrain the volume of the ice sheet after correcting for current ice melt, hydrology, and far‐field gravitational effects. Regional ice‐loading models based on new geologically inferred ice margin chronologies show a significantly better fit to the GRACE data than that of ICE‐5G. The regional ice models contain less ice in the Barents Sea than present in ICE‐5G (5–6.3 m equivalent sea level versus 8.5 m), which increases the ongoing difficulty in closing the global sea level budget at the Last Glacial Maximum.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207