MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997479603 · doi:10.1029/2019jb018333

ITRF2014, Earth Figure Changes, and Geocenter Velocity: Implications for GIA and Recent Ice Melting

2020· article· en· W2997479603 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laurent Métivier, Hélène Rouby, Paul Rebischung, Z. Altamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoInstitut de Physique du Globe de ParisCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPost-glacial reboundGeodesyGeologyGeoidSatellite geodesySpherical harmonicsMantle (geology)GeophysicsPhysicsGlacial periodGeodetic datumGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using a selection of Global Navigation Satellite System vertical velocities from the latest solution of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) ITRF2014, we calculate the degree‐1 and degree‐2 spherical harmonics coefficients (SHC) of the solid Earth figure changes at different dates, with realistic errors that take into account the inhomogeneity of the network. We find that the SHC are globally close to zero except the zonal coefficients, which show values notably larger than those derived from different glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) models and which have tended to increase during the time span of observations. We show that these differences are most probably due to global recent ice melting (RIM). Assuming elastic RIM deformation, we then investigate the Earth's geocenter velocity and the geoid oblateness time evolution ( J 2 ‐rate) derived from our SHC estimations. The obtained geocenter velocity reaches 0.9 ± 0.5 mm/year in 2013 with a z ‐component of 0.8 ± 0.4 mm/year, which is slightly larger than previous estimations. We compare our J 2 ‐rate estimations with observations. Our estimations show a similar acceleration in J 2 after 2000. However, our estimates are notably larger than the observations. This indicates either that the J 2 ‐rate due to GIA processes is lower than expected (as proposed by Nakada et al., 2015, 2016) or that the deformation induced by RIM is not purely elastic, or both. Finally, we show that viscous relaxation or phase transitions in the mantle transition zone may only partly explain this discrepancy. This raises the question of the accuracy of current mass estimations of RIM and GIA models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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