MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388757441 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg3035

Geodynamically corrected Pliocene shoreline elevations in Australia consistent with midrange projections of Antarctic ice loss

2023· article· en· W4388757441 on OpenAlexaff
Fred Richards, Sophie Coulson, Mark Hoggard, Jacqueline Austermann, Blake Dyer, J. X. Mitrovica

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryImperial College LondonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyPost-glacial reboundIce sheetAntarctic ice sheetSea levelIsostasyOceanographyClimatologyContinental shelfSea iceCryospherePaleontologyTectonicsLithosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mid-Pliocene represents the most recent interval in Earth history with climatic conditions similar to those expected in the coming decades. Mid-Pliocene sea level estimates therefore provide important constraints on projections of future ice sheet behavior and sea level change but differ by tens of meters due to local distortion of paleoshorelines caused by mantle dynamics. We combine an Australian sea level marker compilation with geodynamic simulations and probabilistic inversions to quantify and remove these post-Pliocene vertical motions at continental scale. Dynamic topography accounts for most of the observed sea level marker deflection, and correcting for this effect and glacial isostatic adjustment yields a Mid-Pliocene global mean sea level of +16.0 (+10.4 to +21.5) m (50th/16th to 84th percentiles). Recalibration of recent high-end sea level projections using this revised estimate implies a more stable Antarctic Ice Sheet under future warming scenarios, consistent with midrange forecasts of sea level rise that do not incorporate a marine ice cliff instability.

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)0.001
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207