MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322006681 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6969

Developments to 2D modelling of ice island deterioration using the CI2D3 Database

2023· preprint· en· W4322006681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Crawford, Greg Crocker, Derek Mueller, J. Joshua Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyancyIcebergIce calvingIce capsGeologySubmarine pipelineLead (geology)Sea iceErosionIce formationAntarctic sea iceClimatologyOceanographyPhysical geographyArctic ice packGeomorphologyGeographyAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsGlacierPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The calving of ice tongues and ice shelves can generate large, tabular icebergs that have climatological implications given their role in dispersing freshwater from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These ‘ice islands’ also pose potential risk to marine industry. It is therefore critical that influential deterioration mechanisms be accurately represented in simulations of ice island drift and deterioration, both for risk mitigation in offshore industry and for climatological studies that are focused on the Polar Regions. The majority of ice island deterioration is the result of sidewall erosion, and specifically that which results from waterline wave-erosion leading to ram growth and buoyancy-forced fracture. This study therefore focuses on the inclusion of the buoyancy-driven “footloose” calving mechanism (Wagner et al., 2014) in simulations of ice island length and areal change. Using size and lineage information of ice islands tracked in the Canadian Ice Island Drift, Deterioration and Detection (CI2D3) Database, we quantitatively assess the performance of the footloose calving model by simulating the deterioration of 172 ice islands. The mean model error was +15 (+/- 400) m over 20 d and increased to +401 (+1400/-800) m for simulations that ran to 80 d. The performance of the footloose calving model is a substantial improvement when compared to simulations that did not include this calving mechanism. For example, a thermal-melt model had mean errors of -252 and -1403 m at 20 and 80 d of simulation, respectively, and the mean error of a zero-melt model was -281 and -1545 m over the same time periods. We also present a new approach to modelling ice island areal change resulting from footloose calving. This simple, two-parameter approach simulates discrete footloose calving events and adjusts the ice island surface area to maintain a constant aspect ratio. Mean model error remained under 1 km2 over 80 d of simulation, showing that the model performs well over numerous months. Using the CI2D3 Database, we were able to conduct the first large-scale assessment of the footloose model’s performance in simulating change to the ice island length dimension. The morphological data included in the database also provided the opportunity to develop an approach for modelling areal deterioration resulting from footloose calving events. The model assessments would benefit from more observations of long-duration ice island tracks, as there were a limited number of ice islands that were tracked in the CI2D3 Database for over 40 d. Future work can look to implement the presented approaches in operational and climatological modelling while the iceberg modelling community also develops an approach to simulate larger-scale ice island fracture.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.079 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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