MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126503578 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-13-00078.1

A Test of Recent Inferences of Net Polar Ice Mass Balance based on Long-Wavelength Gravity

2013· article· en· W2126503578 on OpenAlexfundno aff
E. Morrow, J. X. Mitrovica, M. G. Sterenborg, Christopher Harig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchPrinceton UniversityHarvard UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIce sheetGeologyPost-glacial reboundClimatologyGreenland ice sheetIce coreGeodesyGlacierSatellite laser rangingPolarSatelliteLaser rangingPhysicsOceanographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A comprehensive analysis of satellite datasets has estimated that the ice sheets of Greenland, West Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, and East Antarctica experienced a net mass loss of −100 ± 92 Gt yr−1 over the period 1992–2000 and −298 ± 58 Gt yr−1 over the period 2000–11, representing an increase of −198 ± 109 Gt yr−1 between the two epochs. The authors demonstrate that the time rate of change of the degree-four zonal harmonic of Earth's gravitational potential provides an independent check on these mass balances that is less sensitive to uncertainties that have contaminated previous analyses of the degree-2 zonal harmonic [e.g., due to ongoing glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), solid Earth body tides, and core–mantle coupling]. For the period 2000–11, the signal implied by the ice sheet mass flux cited above is (3.8 ± 0.6) × 10−11 yr−1, whereas the change in the harmonic across the two epochs is (2.3 ± 1.1) × 10−11 yr−1. In comparison, using satellite laser ranging (SLR) data, the authors estimate a GIA-corrected value of (3.8 ± 0.6) × 10−11 yr−1 for the epoch 2000–11 and a change across the two epochs of (5.3 ± 1.6) × 10−11 yr−1. The authors conclude that the former supports recent estimates of melting over the last decade, whereas the latter suggests either that estimated melt rates for the earlier epoch were too high or that the uncertainty associated with the SLR-based inference of during the earlier epoch is underestimated.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207