An assessment of forward and inverse GIA solutions for Antarctica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we assess the most recent estimates of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) for Antarctica, including those from both forward and inverse methods. The assessment is based on a comparison of the estimated uplift rates with a set of elastic-corrected GPS vertical velocities. These have been observed from an extensive GPS network and computed using data over the period 2009-2014. We find systematic underestimations of the observed uplift rates in both inverse and forward methods over specific regions of Antarctica characterized by low mantle viscosities and thin lithosphere, such as the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea Embayment, where its recent ice discharge history is likely to be playing a role in current GIA. Uplift estimates for regions where many GIA models have traditionally placed their uplift maxima, such as the margins of Filchner-Ronne and Ross ice shelves, are found to be overestimated. GIA estimates show large variability over the interior of East Antarctica which results in increased uncertainties on the ice-sheet mass balance derived from gravimetry methods.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".