MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014920837 · doi:10.1029/2020gl087944

Uncertainties of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Model Predictions in North America Associated With 3D Structure

2020· article· en· W3014920837 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanghua Li, Patrick Wu, Holger Steffen, Nicole S. Khan, Simon E. Engelhart, Matteo Vacchi, Timothy A. Shaw, W. R. Peltier, Benjamin P. Horton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersEarth Observatory of SingaporeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, IndiaNational Research Foundation SingaporeNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Hong KongMinistry of Education - SingaporeNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPost-glacial reboundGeologyBayLast Glacial MaximumLithosphereMantle (geology)Glacial periodSea levelDeglaciationIce sheetGeodesyOceanographyClimatologyPhysical geographyGeomorphologyTectonicsPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We quantify GIA prediction uncertainties of 250 1D and 3D glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) models through comparisons with deglacial relative sea‐level (RSL) data from North America and rate of vertical land motion ( ) and gravity rate of change ( ) from GNSS and GRACE data, respectively. Spatially, the size of the RSL uncertainties varies across North America with the largest from Hudson Bay and near previous ice margins along the northern Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which suggests 3D viscosity structure in the lower mantle and laterally varying lithospheric thickness. Temporally, RSL uncertainties decrease from the Last Glacial Maximum to present except for west of Hudson Bay and the northeastern Pacific coast. The uncertainties of both these regions increase from 30 to 45 m between 15 and 11 ka BP, which may be due to the rapid decrease of surface loading at that time. Present‐day and uncertainties are largest in southwestern Hudson Bay with magnitudes of 2.4 mm/year and 0.4 μ Gal/year, mainly due to the 3D viscosity structure in the lower mantle.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207