MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220706801 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-10657

Validation of the North American Ice Service iceberg drift model using a novel database of in-situ iceberg drift observations

2022· preprint· en· W4220706801 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Garbo, Luke Copland, Derek Mueller, Adrienne Tivy, Philippe Lamontagne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergSubmarine pipelineDrifterSea iceOceanographyClimatologyMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Icebergs calved from high-latitude glaciers and ice shelves pose a threat to vessels and offshore infrastructure at a time when Arctic shipping and offshore resource exploration are increasing. Knowledge of the location of potential ice hazards is therefore critical to ensure safe and efficient operations in this remote region. The Canadian Ice Service provides information to stakeholders on the observed and predicted distribution of icebergs in Canadian waters by combining iceberg observations with forecasts from the North American Ice Service (NAIS) iceberg drift model. The NAIS model estimates the forces acting on an iceberg to predict its future position and velocity and is widely used for the East Coast of Canada. However, the model is unproven for areas >60°N and suffers from insufficient validation due to a lack of reliable in-situ observations of iceberg drift. In this study, we use a newly compiled iceberg tracking beacon database to assess the skill of the NAIS iceberg model's predictions of iceberg drift and investigate sensitivity to morphology and environmental forcing (e.g., ocean currents, winds). Hindcast simulations of the observed tracks of 44 icebergs over the period 2008-2019 were run using ocean currents from three ocean models (CECOM, GLORYS and RIOPS) and wind and wave inputs from the ERA5 reanalysis. Comparisons of several distance error metrics between observed and modelled drift tracks indicate that the NAIS model produces realistic simulations of iceberg drift in Baffin Bay. The root mean square error after the initial 24-hour hindcast period ranged from 18-22 km and increased at a daily rate of 11-13 km, which is comparable to operational forecasts elsewhere. Improved model performance was observed for longer (>250 m) and deeper-keeled (>100 m) icebergs, which appears to counteract the model’s tendency to overestimate drift by reducing the influence of stronger surface ocean currents acting on the iceberg. Ocean current direction, wind direction, and iceberg keel geometry were identified by a sensitivity analysis as the model parameters and environmental driving forces that have the greatest influence on modelled iceberg drift. These results emphasize the need for accurate environmental information and underscore the importance of properly representing the physical characteristics of icebergs in drift models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→