Glacial Isostatic Adjustment with 3D Earth models: A comparison of case studies of deglacial relative sea level records of North America and Russian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian landmass of North America and the Russian Arctic were covered by large ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum, and have been key areas for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) studies. Previous GIA studies have applied 1D models of Earth’s interior viscoelastic structure; however, seismic tomography, field geology and recent studies reveal the potential importance of 3D models of this structure. Here, using the latest quality-controlled deglacial sea-level databases from North America and the Russian Arctic, we investigate the effects of 3D structure on GIA predictions. We explore scaling factors in the upper mantle (βUM) and lower mantle (βLM) and the 1D background viscosity model (ηo) with predictions of of the ICE-6G_C (VM5a) glaciation/deglaciation model of Peltier et al (2015, JGR) in these two regions, and compare with the best fit 3D viscosity structures. We compute gravitationally self-consistent relative sea-level histories with time dependent coastlines and rotational feedback using both the Normal Mode Method and Coupled Laplace-Finite Element Method. A subset of 3D GIA models is found that can fit the deglacial sea-level databases for both regions. These databases cover both the near and intermediate field regions. However, North America and Russian Arctic prefer different 3D structures (i.e., combinations of (ηo, βUM, βLM)) to provide the best fits. The Russian Arctic database prefers a softer background viscosity model (ηo), but larger scaling factors (βUM, βLM) than those preferred by the North America database. Outstanding issues include the uncertainty of the history of local glaciation history. For example, preliminary modifications of the ice model in Russian Arctic reveal that the misfits of 1D models can be significantly reduced, but still fit less well than the best fit 3D GIA model.An additional issue concerns the extent to which the 3D models are able to improve both fits in North America and Russian Arctic when compared with 1D internal structure (ICE-6G_C VM5a & ICE-7G VM7), will be assessed in a preliminary fashion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".