Improved Estimation of Glacial‐Earthquake Size Through New Modeling of the Seismic Source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 MCSF, a summary measure of glacial‐earthquake size, was recently demonstrated by Olsen and Nettles (2019), https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005054 . However, MCSF 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 MCSF, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".