MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768939228 · doi:10.1002/2016jb013844

Comment on “An Assessment of the ICE‐6G_C (VM5a) Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Model” by Purcell et al.

2017· article· en· W2768939228 on OpenAlexafffundabout
W. R. Peltier, Donald F. Argus, R. Drummond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGeologyPost-glacial reboundSpherical harmonicsRadiocarbon datingGeodesyGlacial periodBathymetryIce sheetLast Glacial MaximumPaleontologyOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The most recently published model of the glacial isostatic adjustment process in the ICE‐NG (VMX) sequence from the University of Toronto, denoted ICE‐6G_C (VM5a), was originally developed to degree and order 256 in spherical harmonics and has been shown to provide accurate fits to a voluminous database of GPS observations from North America, Eurasia, and Antarctica, to time dependent gravity data being provided by the GRACE satellites, and to radiocarbon‐dated relative sea level histories through the Holocene epoch. The authors of the Purcell et al. (2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012742) paper have suggested this model to be flawed. We have produced a further version of our model, denoted ICE‐6G_D (VM5a), by employing the same BEDMAP2 bathymetry for the Southern Ocean as employed in their analysis which has somewhat reduced the differences between our results. However, significant physically important differences remain, including the magnitude of present‐day vertical crustal motion in the embayments and in the spectrum of Stokes coefficients for present‐day geoid height time dependence which continues to “flatten” at high spherical harmonic degree. We explore the reasons for these differences and trace them to the use by Purcell et al. of a loading history for the embayments that differs significantly from that tabulated for both the original and modified versions of our 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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0180.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.011

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations511
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207