MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280653369 · doi:10.5194/essd-14-2209-2022

Greenland Geothermal Heat Flow Database and Map (Version 1)

2022· article· en· W4280653369 on OpenAlexaff
William Colgan, Agnes Wansing, Kenneth D. Mankoff, Mareen Lösing, John R. Hopper, Keith E. Louden, Jörg Ebbing, Flemming G. Christiansen, Thomas Ingeman‐Nielsen, Lillemor Claesson Liljedahl, Joseph A. MacGregor, Árni Hjartarson, Stefan Bernstein, Nanna B. Karlsson, Sven Fuchs, Juha Hartikainen, Johan Liakka, Robert S. Fausto, Dorthe Dahl‐Jensen, Anders Anker Bjørk, Jens-Öve Näslund, Finn Mørk, Yasmina M. Martos, Niels Balling, Thomas Funck, Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Dorthe Petersen, Ulrik Gregersen, Gregers Dam, Tøve Nielsen, Shfaqat Abbas Khan, Anja Løkkegaard

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie University
FundersHokkaido UniversityDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHelmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam - Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZEuropean Space AgencyVillum Fonden
KeywordsGeothermal gradientHeat flowGeologyDatabaseFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceGeophysicsMeteorologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We compile and analyze all available geothermal heat flow measurements collected in and around Greenland into a new database of 419 sites and generate an accompanying spatial map. This database includes 290 sites previously reported by the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC), for which we now standardize measurement and metadata quality. This database also includes 129 new sites, which have not been previously reported by the IHFC. These new sites consist of 88 offshore measurements and 41 onshore measurements, of which 24 are subglacial. We employ machine learning to synthesize these in situ measurements into a gridded geothermal heat flow model that is consistent across both continental and marine areas in and around Greenland. This model has a native horizontal resolution of 55 km. In comparison to five existing Greenland geothermal heat flow models, our model has the lowest mean geothermal heat flow for Greenland onshore areas. Our modeled heat flow in central North Greenland is highly sensitive to whether the NGRIP (North GReenland Ice core Project) elevated heat flow anomaly is included in the training dataset. Our model's most distinctive spatial feature is pronounced low geothermal heat flow (< 40 mW m−2) across the North Atlantic Craton of southern Greenland. Crucially, our model does not show an area of elevated heat flow that might be interpreted as remnant from the Icelandic plume track. Finally, we discuss the substantial influence of paleoclimatic and other corrections on geothermal heat flow measurements in Greenland. The in situ measurement database and gridded heat flow model, as well as other supporting materials, are freely available from the GEUS Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.22008/FK2/F9P03L; Colgan and Wansing, 2021).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.031

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth system science dataSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207