MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383172282 · doi:10.5194/tc-17-2607-2023

The impact of surface melt rate and catchment characteristics on Greenland Ice Sheet moulin inputs

2023· article· en· W4383172282 on OpenAlexafffund
Tim Hill, Christine F. Dow

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGreenland ice sheetMeltwaterGeologyDrainage basinIce sheetHydrology (agriculture)DrainageForcing (mathematics)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologyGlacier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The supraglacial drainage system of the Greenland Ice Sheet, in combination with surface melt rate, controls the rate of water flow into moulins, a major driver of subglacial water pressure. We apply the Subaerial Drainage System (SaDS) model, a physically based surface meltwater flow model, to a ∼20×27km2 catchment on the southwestern Greenland Ice Sheet for 4 years of melt forcing (2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016) to (1) examine the relationship between surface melt rate and the rate, diurnal amplitude, and timing of surface inputs to moulins; (2) compare SaDS to contemporary models; and (3) present a framework for selecting appropriate supraglacial drainage models for different modelling objectives. We find that variations in the rate and timing of modelled moulin inputs related to the development of supraglacial channels are relatively more important in years with low melt volumes than years with high melt volumes. We suggest that a process-resolving supraglacial hydrology model (e.g., SaDS) should be considered when modelling outcomes are sensitive to subdiurnal and long-term seasonal changes in the rate of discharge into moulins.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207