MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001222425 · doi:10.3389/feart.2019.00360

High Resolution Mapping of Ice Mass Loss in the Gulf of Alaska From Constrained Forward Modeling of GRACE Data

2020· article· en· W3001222425 on OpenAlex
Cheick Doumbia, Pascal Castellazzi, Alain N. Rousseau, Macarena Amaya

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsGlacierAnomaly (physics)Scale (ratio)GeologyClimatologySeries (stratigraphy)GeodesyPhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The resolution of GRACE Terrestrial Water Storage change data is too low to discriminate mass variations at the scale of glaciers, small ensemble of glaciers, or icefields. In this paper, we applied an iterative constraint modelling strategy over the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) to improve the resolution of ice loss estimates derived from GRACE. We assess the effect of the most influential parameters such as the type of GRACE Level-2 solution and the degree of heterogeneity of the distribution map over which the GRACE data is focused. Three GRACE solutions from the most common processing strategies and three ice distribution maps of resolutions ranging from 55,000 km2 to 20,000 km2 are used. First, we present results from a series of simulations with synthetic data or a mix of synthetic/modelled data to validate the focusing strategy and we point out how inaccuracies arise while increasing the spatial resolution of GRACE data. Second, we present the recovery of the total GRACE-derived mass change anomaly at the scale of the GOA. At this scale, all solutions and distribution maps agree, showing ~40 Gt/yr of mean ice mass loss over the 2002-2017 period. This result is similar to studies using GRACE solutions from the latest releases and time-series of more than 8 years. The first studies using GRACE data published during the 2005-2008 era generally overestimated the total ice mass loss. Third, we show results of the three resolutions tested to focus the mass anomaly. Using focusing units (mascon) of ~30,000 km2 or larger, the focusing procedure provides reliable results with errors below 15%. Below this threshold, errors of up to 56% are observed.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.183 · 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