Influence of 3D Earth Structure on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in the Russian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analyses of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) and deglacial relative sea‐level (RSL) change in the Russian Arctic deliver important insights into the Earth's viscosity structure and the deglaciation history of the Eurasian ice sheet complex. Here, we validate the 1D GIA models ICE‐6G_C (VM5a) and ICE‐7G_NA (VM7) and select new 3D GIA models in the Russian Arctic against a quality‐controlled deglacial RSL database of >500 sea‐level data points from 24 regions. Both 1D models correspond to the RSL data along the southern coast of the Barents Sea and Franz Josef Land from ∼11 ka BP to present but show notable misfits (>50 m at 10 ka BP) with the White Sea data. We find 3D model predictions of deglacial RSL resolve most of the misfits with the observed data for the White Sea while retaining comparable fits in other regions of the Russian Arctic. Our results further reveal: (a) RSL in the western Russian Arctic is sensitive to elastic lithosphere with lateral thickness variation and 3D viscosity structure in the upper mantle; and (b) RSL in the whole Russian Arctic is less sensitive to 3D viscosity structure in the lower mantle compared to the upper mantle. The 3D models reveal a compromise in the upper mantle between the background viscosity and scaling factor to best fit the RSL data, which needs to be considered in future 3D GIA studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".