MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341356865 · doi:10.1002/2016gl068648

Separating climate‐induced mass transfers and instrumental effects from tectonic signal in repeated absolute gravity measurements

2016· article· en· W2341356865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michel Van Camp, O. de Viron, Jean‐Philippe Avouac

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHelmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam - Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZInstitut Universitaire de FranceCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsTectonicsGeologyGeodesySatelliteSeismologyClimatologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimate the signature of the climate‐induced mass transfers in repeated absolute gravity measurements based on satellite gravimetric measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission. We show results at the globe scale and compare them with repeated absolute gravity (AG) time behavior in three zones where AG surveys have been published: Northwestern Europe, Canada, and Tibet. For 10 yearly campaigns, the uncertainties affecting the determination of a linear gravity rate of change range 3–4 nm/s2/a in most cases, in the absence of instrumental artifacts. The results are consistent with what is observed for long‐term repeated campaigns. We also discuss the possible artifact that can result from using short AG survey to determine the tectonic effects in a zone of high hydrological variability. We call into question the tectonic interpretation of several gravity changes reported from stations in Tibet, in particular the variation observed prior to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207