MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mitigating Spatial Leakage in Monthly GRACE/GRACE-FO Gravity Fields for the Separation of Barystatic Sea-Level Variations and Residual Ocean Circulation Effects

2020· article· en· W3080973716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Volker Klemann, Henryk Dobslaw, Meike Bagge, Robert Dill, Maik Thomas, Christoph Dahle, Frank Flechtner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchipelagoSea levelResidualEnvironmental scienceClimatologyOcean currentContinental shelfOceanographyHomogeneity (statistics)Spatial variabilityGeologySpatial distributionRemote sensingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Temporal variations in the total ocean mass representing the barystatic part of present-day global mean sea-level rise can be unambiguously inferred from time-series of global gravity fields as provided by the GRACE and GRACE-FO missions. A spatial integration over all ocean regions, however, largely underestimates present-day rates as long as the effects of spatial leakage along the coasts of in particular Antarctica, Greenland, and the various islands of the Canadian Archipelago are not properly considered.</p><p>Based on the recent release 06 of monthly gravity fields processed at GFZ, we quantify (and subsequently correct) the contribution of spatial leakage to the post-processed mass anomalies of continental water storage and ocean bottom pressure. Utilising the sea level equation allows to predict spatially variable ocean mass trends out of the (leakage-corrected) terrestrial mass distributions from GRACE and GRACE-FO. Consistent results for the global mean barystatic sea-level rise are obtained also from spatial integrations over ocean masks with different coastal buffer zones ranging from 400 to 1000 km, thereby confirming the robustness of our method. Residual month-to-month variations in ocean bottom pressure are indicative for errors in the monthly-mean estimates of the applied de-aliasing model AOD1B RL06 and will be thus contrasted against very recent MPIOM experiments considered for AOD1B RL07. The in this way improved leakage correction will be implemented in future GravIS versions (http://gravis.gfz-potsdam.de).</p>

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207