A comparison of two Stokes ice sheet models applied to the Marine Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for plan view models (MISMIP3d)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We present a comparison of the numerics and simulation results for two "full" Stokes ice sheet models, FELIX-S (Leng et al. 2012) and Elmer/Ice (Gagliardini et al. 2013). The models are applied to the Marine Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for plan view models (MISMIP3d). For the diagnostic experiment (P75D) the two models give similar results ( < 2 % difference with respect to along-flow velocities) when using identical geometries and computational meshes, which we interpret as an indication of inherent consistencies and similarities between the two models. For the standard (Stnd), P75S, and P75R prognostic experiments, we find that FELIX-S (Elmer/Ice) grounding lines are relatively more retreated (advanced), results that are consistent with minor differences observed in the diagnostic experiment results and that we show to be due to different choices in the implementation of basal boundary conditions in the two models. While we are not able to argue for the relative favorability of either implementation, we do show that these differences decrease with increasing horizontal (i.e., both along- and across-flow) grid resolution and that grounding-line positions for FELIX-S and Elmer/Ice converge to within the estimated truncation error for Elmer/Ice. Stokes model solutions are often treated as an accuracy metric in model intercomparison experiments, but computational cost may not always allow for the use of model resolution within the regime of asymptotic convergence. In this case, we propose that an alternative estimate for the uncertainty in the grounding-line position is the span of grounding-line positions predicted by multiple Stokes models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".