MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329876543 · doi:10.3189/002214311798843449

Improvements to shear-deformational models of glacier dynamics through a longitudinal stress factor

2011· article· en· W2329876543 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Surendra Adhikari, Shawn J. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsGeologyGlacierDragShear stressShear (geology)MechanicsGeotechnical engineeringFlow (mathematics)GeometryGeomorphologyMathematicsPhysicsPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a two-dimensional (plane strain) glacier domain, gravity-driven ice flow is balanced by basal drag and the resistance associated with longitudinal stress gradients. The plane strain Stokes model accommodates both these resistances, whereas several simpler models only account for basal drag. Solving the Stokes equations is numerically challenging and computationally expensive, but simpler models may lead to unrealistic dynamical behaviour. Here, we propose a factor which can be introduced in shear-deformational flow models to yield results comparable to those from the plane strain Stokes model. As this factor adapts simpler models to capture the effects of missing dynamics, i.e. longitudinal stress gradients, we refer to it as the longitudinal stress ( L -)factor. We assess the usefulness of this factor for idealized domains with complex basal topography and evolving geometry. We apply the model to Haig Glacier, Canadian Rockies, in order to present an illustration of how simulations of glacier response to climate forcing can be improved through the introduction of the L -factor in a shear-deformational flow model.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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