MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324520670 · doi:10.3189/2014jog13j209

How well is firn densification represented by a physically based multilayer model? Model evaluation for Devon Ice Cap, Nunavut, Canada

2014· article· en· W2324520670 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabrielle Gascon, Martin Sharp, David Burgess, Peter Bezeau, Andrew B. G. Bush, Samuel Morin, Matthieu Lafaysse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFirnSnowpackGeologyGlacierGlacier mass balanceMeltwaterSnowAccumulation zoneClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesPhysical geographyIce streamGeomorphologyCryosphereSea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Evaluation of how accurately snowpack models can capture hydrological processes in firn is critical to determining how well they will simulate future glacier mass-balance changes. Here we compare simulations using the Crocus snowpack model with the evolving firn stratigraphy recorded in 14 cores drilled at four elevations in the accumulation zone of Devon Ice Cap, Canada, during the 2004–12 period of rapid summer warming. Simulations were forced with a combination of surface observations and reanalysis data. Simulations resulted in positive model bias in near-surface density, and negative bias in density at depth compared to observations. Results point to the importance of incorporating heterogeneous percolation in firn in order to improve the representation of meltwater flow, better reproduce observed firn density and temperature profile evolution, and improve simulations of glacier mass balance during periods of climate warming.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207