MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139149217 · doi:10.1029/2002jb001906

Is there a single surge mechanism? Contrasts in dynamics between glacier surges in Svalbard and other regions

2003· article· en· W2139149217 on OpenAlexaff
Tavi Murray, Tazio Strozzi, Adrian Luckman, Hester Jiskoot, Panos Christakos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurgeGlacierGeologyFront (military)GeodesyTidewater glacier cycleClimatologyGeomorphologyIce calvingOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 1990s, Monacobreen, a 40‐km‐long tidewater glacier in Svalbard, underwent a major surge. We mapped the surge dynamics using ERS synthetic aperture radar images, differential dual‐azimuth interferometry and intensity correlation tracking. A series of 11 three‐dimensional (3‐D) velocity maps covering the period 1991–1997 show a months‐long initiation and years‐long termination to the surge, with no indication of a surge front travelling downglacier. During the surge, the front of the glacier advanced ∼2 km, the velocity and derived strain rate increased by more than an order of magnitude, and maximum ice flow rates measured during 1994 were ∼5 m d −1 . The spatial pattern of both velocity and strain rate was remarkably consistent and must therefore be controlled by spatially fixed processes operating at the glacier bed. We combine these results with those published in the literature to construct a typical Svalbard glacier surge cycle and compare this to surge dynamics of glaciers from other cluster regions, especially those of Variegated Glacier in Alaska. The strong contrast in dynamics suggests that there exist at least two distinct surge mechanisms.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations256
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207