Glacier shrinkage across High Mountain Asia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An assessment of glacier shrinkage (reduction of area) for all of High Mountain Asia requires a complete compilation of measured rates of change and also a methodology for objective comparison of rates. I present a compilation from 155 publications reporting glacier area changes, and also a methodology that overcomes the main obstacles hindering comparison. Glacier areas are not always assigned uncertainties, and this problem is addressed with an error model derived from published estimates. The problem of discordant survey dates is addressed by interpolating measured areas to fixed dates at pentadal intervals. Interpolation error depends only incoherently on the time span between measurements, but strongly on glacier size: smaller glaciers, in addition to changing more rapidly on average, exhibit more variable rates of change. The overlapping boundaries of study regions are reconciled by mapping all of the information to a 0.5° geographical grid. When coupled with glacier area information from the Randolph Glacier Inventory, the widely observed inverse dependence of shrinkage rates on glacier size shows promise as a tool for treating incomplete spatial coverage. Over High Mountain Asia as a whole from 1960 to 2010, the unweighted average shrinkage rate is –0.57% a –1 , but corrections for variable glacier size raise the average to –0.34% a –1 , and filling unmeasured gridcells with rates based on size dependence alters the latter estimate to –0.40% a –1 . The uncertainties in these rates are large. The Karakoram anomaly is found to be a zonal feature extending well to the east of the Karakoram proper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it