MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119789633 · doi:10.1029/2012gl052348

Regional biases in absolute sea‐level estimates from tide gauge data due to residual unmodeled vertical land movement

2012· article· en· W2119789633 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilResearch Councils UKSight Research UK
KeywordsTide gaugePost-glacial reboundGeodesyResidualSea levelGeologyGlobal Positioning SystemClimatologyReference frameData setOceanographyFrame (networking)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The only vertical land movement signal routinely corrected for when estimating absolute sea‐level change from tide gauge data is that due to glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). We compare modeled GIA uplift (ICE‐5G + VM2) with vertical land movement at ∼300 GPS stations located near to a global set of tide gauges, and find regionally coherent differences of commonly ±0.5–2 mm/yr. Reference frame differences and signal due to present‐day mass trends cannot reconcile these differences. We examine sensitivity to the GIA Earth model by fitting to a subset of the GPS velocities and find substantial regional sensitivity, but no single Earth model is able to reduce the disagreement in all regions. We suggest errors in ice history and neglected lateral Earth structure dominate model‐data differences, and urge caution in the use of modeled GIA uplift alone when interpreting regional‐ and global‐ scale absolute (geocentric) sea level from tide gauge data.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.104 · 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