Coupling modelling and satellite observations to constrain subglacial melt rates and hydrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meltwater forms at the base of the Antarctic Ice Sheet due to geothermal heat flux (GHF) and basal frictional dissipation. Despite the relatively small volume, this meltwater has a profound effect on ice-sheet stability, controlling the dynamics of the ice sheet and the interaction of the ice sheet with the ocean. However, observations of subglacial melting and hydrology in Antarctica are limited. Here we use numerical modelling to assess subglacial melt rates and hydrology beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our case study, focused on the Amery Ice Shelf catchment, shows that total subglacial melting in the catchment is 6.5 Gt yr-1, over 50% larger than previous estimates. Uncertainty in estimates of GHF leads to a variation in total melt of ±7%. The meltwater provides an extra 8% flux of freshwater to the ocean in addition to contributions from iceberg calving and melting of the ice shelf. GHF and basal dissipation contribute equally to the total melt rate, but basal dissipation is an order of magnitude larger beneath ice streams. Remote-sensing observations, from CryoSat-2, indicating active subglacial lakes and ice-shelf basal melting constrain subglacial hydrology modelling. We observe a network of subglacial channels that link subglacial lakes and trigger isolated areas of sub-ice-shelf melting close to the grounding line. Building upon this Amery case study, we expand our analysis to quantify subglacial melt rates and hydrology beneath the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".