Results from the EISMINT model intercomparison: the effects of thermomechanical coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper discusses results from the second phase of the European Ice Sheet Modelling Initiative (EISMINT). It reports the intercomparison of ten operational ice-sheet models and uses a series of experiments to examine the implications of thermomechanical coupling for model behaviour. A schematic, circular ice sheet is used in the work which investigates both steady states and the response to stepped changes in climate. The major finding is that the radial symmetry implied in the experimental design can, under certain circumstances, break down with the formation of distinct, regularly spaced spokes of cold ice which extended from the interior of the ice sheet outward to the surrounding zone of basal melt. These features also manifest themselves in the thickness and velocity distributions predicted by the models. They appear to be a common feature to all of the models which took part in the intercomparison, and may stem from interactions between ice temperature, flow and surface form. The exact nature of these features varies between models, and their existence appears to be controlled by the overall thermal regime of the ice sheet. A second result is that there is considerable agreement between the models in their predictions of global-scale response to imposed climate change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".