Feasibility of ice sheet conservation using seabed anchored curtains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea level rise is expected to be rapid and extremely damaging to coastal communities and infrastructure, with unavoidable losses and coastal protection costs in the tens of billions per year. Retreat of the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers is likely already in an unstable regime as their oceanic fronts are ablated by deep intruding layers of relatively warm seawater. Warm water can be blocked from reaching the grounding line by thin flexible buoyant curtains anchored to the seabed. The consequent reduction in ice shelf melting could result in increased ice sheet buttressing as the shelf makes contact with seabed highs. Flexible curtains are less costly than solid artificial barriers, more robust against iceberg collisions, and easier to repair or remove in the event of unforeseen side effects. We illustrate the technical viability of this approach by considering curtain design concepts that should withstand oceanographic forces, and feasible methods of installation. Suitable materials are commonly available. Installation of a seabed curtain in temperate ocean waters would be entirely within the capabilities of existing offshore and deep ocean construction techniques. Installing in polar waters presents severe challenges from icebergs, harsh weather, and brief working seasons, which can however, be overcome with present-day technology. An 80 km long curtain installed in 600 m deep waters on alluvial sediments could help stabilize Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers over the next few centuries at much lower cost ($40-80 billion + $1-2 billion/yr maintenance) than the global coastline protection (∼$40 billion/yr) needed due to their collapse.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".