MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382723907 · doi:10.1017/jog.2023.35

Global clustering of recent glacier surges from radar backscatter data, 2017–2022

2023· article· en· W4382723907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andreas Kääb, Varvara Bazilova, Paul Leclercq, Erik Schytt Mannerfelt, Tazio Strozzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsSurgeGlacierGeologyRadarBackscatter (email)ClimatologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using global Sentinel-1 radar backscatter data, we systematically map the locations of glaciers with surge-type activity during 2017–22. Patterns of pronounced increases or decreases in the strongest backscatter between two winter seasons often indicate large changes in glacier crevassing, which we treat here as a sign of surge-type activity. Validations against velocity time series, terminus advances and crevassing found in optical satellite images confirm the robustness of this approach. We find 115 surge-type events globally between 2017 and 2022, around 100 of which on glaciers already know as surge-type. Our data reveal a pronounced spatial clustering in three regions, (i) Karakoram, Pamirs and Western Kunlun Shan (~50 surges), (ii) Svalbard (~25) and (iii) Yukon/Alaska (~9), with only a few other scattered surges elsewhere. This spatial clustering is significantly more pronounced than the overall global clustering of known surge-type glaciers. The 2017–22 clustering may point to climatic forcing of surge initiation.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207