MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135449655 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2004.1350

The effect of cavitation on glacier sliding

2004· article· en· W2135449655 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

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragCavitationGlacierBounded functionGeologyMechanicsElasticity (physics)MathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsGeomorphologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basal sliding is one of the most important components in the dynamics of fast–flowing glaciers, but remains poorly understood on a theoretical level. In this paper, the problem of glacier sliding with cavitation over hard beds is addressed in detail. First, a bound on drag generated by the bed is derived for arbitrary bed geometries. This bound shows that the commonly used sliding law, τ b = Cu m b N n , cannot apply to beds with bounded slopes. In order to resolve the issue of a realistic sliding law, we consider the classical Nye–Kamb sliding problem, extended to cover the case of cavitation but neglecting regelation. Based on an analogy with contact problems in elasticity, we develop a method which allows solutions to be constructed for any finite number of cavities per bed period. The method is then used to find sliding laws for irregular hard beds, and to test previously developed theories for calculating the drag generated by beds on which obstacles of many different sizes are present. It is found that the maximum drag attained is controlled by those bed obstacles which have the steepest slopes.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · 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