MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183943094 · doi:10.3389/feart.2021.675681

Surface Mass-Balance Gradients From Elevation and Ice Flux Data in the Columbia Basin, Canada

2021· article· en· W3183943094 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ben M. Pelto, Brian Menounos

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHakai InstituteBC HydroCanada Research ChairsTula FoundationPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsGlacierElevation (ballistics)Glacier mass balanceSnowFlux (metallurgy)GeologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyGeomorphologyMathematicsGeometryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mass-balance—elevation relation for a given glacier is required for many numerical models of ice flow. Direct measurements of this relation using remotely-sensed methods are complicated by ice dynamics, so observations are currently limited to glaciers where surface mass-balance measurements are routinely made. We test the viability of using the continuity equation to estimate annual surface mass balance between flux-gates in the absence of in situ measurements, on five glaciers in the Columbia Mountains of British Columbia, Canada. Repeat airborne laser scanning surveys of glacier surface elevation, ice penetrating radar surveys and publicly available maps of ice thickness are used to estimate changes in surface elevation and ice flux. We evaluate this approach by comparing modeled to observed mass balance. Modeled mass-balance gradients well-approximate those obtained from direct measurement of surface mass balance, with a mean difference of +6.6 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m1"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math> 4%. Regressing modeled mass balance, equilibrium line altitudes are on average 15 m higher than satellite-observations of the transient snow line. Estimates of mass balance over flux bins compare less favorably than the gradients. Average mean error (+0.03 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m2"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math> 0.07 m w.e.) between observed and modeled mass balance over flux bins is relatively small, yet mean absolute error (0.55 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m3"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math> 0.18 m w.e.) and average modeled mass-balance uncertainty (0.57 m w.e.) are large. Mass conservation, assessed with glaciological data, is respected (when estimates are within 1σ uncertainties) for 84% of flux bins representing 86% of total glacier area. Uncertainty on ice velocity, especially for areas where surface velocity is low (&amp;lt;10 m a −1 ) contributes the greatest error in estimating ice flux. We find that using modeled ice thicknesses yields comparable modeled mass-balance gradients relative to using observations of ice thickness, but we caution against over-interpreting individual flux-bin mass balances due to large mass-balance residuals. Given the performance of modeled ice thickness and the increasing availability of ice velocity and surface topography data, we suggest that similar efforts to produce mass-balance gradients using modern high-resolution datasets are feasible on larger scales.

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)0.000
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207