MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213360190 · doi:10.1029/2021gl096599

Ice Sheet Surface and Subsurface Melt Water Discrimination Using Multi‐Frequency Microwave Radiometry

2022· article· en· W4213360190 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Colliander, Mohammad Mousavi, Shawn J. Marshall, Samira Samimi, John S. Kimball, Julie Z. Miller, Joel T. Johnson, Mariko Burgin

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeltwaterGreenland ice sheetEnvironmental scienceMicrowaveGeologyIce sheetSubsurface flowRemote sensingClimatologySnowGeomorphologyGroundwater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For understanding englacial hydrology and its impact on ice sheet mass balance, observations of the liquid water content (LWC) within the ice sheets are needed. We combined 1.4–10.7 GHz passive microwave measurements with traditional 18.7–36.5 GHz measurements to detect subsurface LWC. In situ measurements from the DYE‐2 experiment site in Greenland and a modeled LWC at this site were used to calibrate and validate the method. Our analysis showed sensitivity of the lower microwave frequencies to LWC in surface and subsurface layers down to at least 2 m, enabling detection of seasonal subsurface LWC and its refreezing. A simplified retrieval detected a delayed refreezing of subsurface LWC following surface freezing, while also capturing total seasonal meltwater production. These advancements open the door to detection of subsurface meltwater and refreezing twice a day at pan‐Greenland scale, thereby enabling improved estimates of ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207