Ice discharge error estimates using different cross-sectional area approaches: a case study for the Canadian High Arctic, 2016/17
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We analyse the various error sources in the estimation of ice discharge through flux gates, distinguishing the cases with ice-thickness data available for glacier cross-sections or only along the centreline. For the latter, we analyse the performance of three U-shaped cross-sectional approaches. We apply this methodology to glaciers of the Canadian High Arctic. The velocity field is the main error source for small and medium-size glaciers (discharge <100 Mt a−1) with low velocities (<100 m a−1), while for large glaciers (discharge >100 Mt a−1) with high velocities (>100 m a−1) the error in cross-sectional area dominates. Thinning/thickening between ice-thickness and velocity measurements should be considered, as it implies systematic errors up to 8% in our study. The U-shaped parabolic approach, which allows for an adjusted estimation when the ice-thickness measurement point is displaced from the glacier centreline, performs best, with small bias and admissible standard error. We observe an increase of ice discharge from the main glaciers (Trinity and Wykeham) of the Prince of Wales Icefield from 2015 to 2016, by 5 and 20%, respectively, followed by a decrease in 2017, by 10 and 15%, respectively. Belcher Glacier, of the Devon Ice Cap, maintains similar discharges during 2015–17.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".