MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217093926 · doi:10.1029/2021jf006384

Improved Estimation of Glacial‐Earthquake Size Through New Modeling of the Seismic Source

2021· article· en· W3217093926 on OpenAlexaff
K. Olsen, M. Nettles, L. M. Cathles, Justin C. Burton, Tavi Murray, T. D. James

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGlacierGeologyIcebergGlacial periodSeismologyScalingIce calvingGeodesyIce sheetPaleontologyGeomorphologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The number of gigaton‐sized iceberg‐calving events occurring annually at Greenland glaciers is increasing, part of a larger trend of accelerating mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Though visual observation of large calving events is rare, ∼60 glacial earthquakes generated by these calving events are currently recorded each year by regional and global seismic stations. An empirical relationship between iceberg size and M CSF , a summary measure of glacial‐earthquake size, was recently demonstrated by Olsen and Nettles (2019), https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005054 . However, M CSF is known to be sensitive to choices made in modeling the seismic source. We incorporate constraints on the seismic source from laboratory studies of calving and test multiple source time functions using synthetic and observed glacial‐earthquake waveforms. We find that a simple, fixed time function with a shape informed by laboratory results greatly improves estimates of earthquake size. The average ratio of estimated to true peak force values is 1.03 for experiments using our preferred source model, compared with an average of 0.3 for models used in previous studies. We find that maximum‐force values estimated from waveform modeling depend far less on model choices than does M CSF , and therefore prefer maximum force as a measure of glacial‐earthquake size. Using both synthetic and real data, we confirm a correlation between maximum force and iceberg mass. Our results support the possibility of developing useful scaling relationships between seismic observables and physical parameters controlling glacier calving.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Earth SurfaceSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207