MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388772945 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-2451

Mapping geodetically inferred Antarctic ice height changes into thickness variations: a sensitivity study

2023· preprint· en· W4388772945 on OpenAlexafffund
Natasha Valencic, Linda Pan, Konstantin Latychev, Natalya Gomez, Evelyn Powell, J. X. Mitrovica

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationHarvard UniversityJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPost-glacial reboundGeologyIce sheetGeodesyAltimeterScalingClimatologyIce streamSea iceCryosphereGeomorphologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Determining recent Antarctic ice volume changes from satellite altimeter measurements of ice height requires a correction for contemporaneous vertical crustal deformation. This correction must consider two main sources of crustal deformation: (1) ongoing glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), that is, the deformational, gravitational and rotational response to late Pleistocene and Holocene ice and ocean mass changes; and (2) modern ice mass flux. In this study, we seek to quantify the uncertainties associated with each of these corrections. Corrections of ice height changes for (1) have generally involved the adoption of global models of GIA defined by some preferred combination of ice history and mantle viscoelastic structure. We have computed the GIA correction generated from a coupled ice sheet – sea level model and a realistic earth model incorporating three-dimensional viscoelastic structure. Integrating the difference between this correction and those from recent GIA analyses widely adopted in the literature yields an uncertainty in total present-day ice volume change equivalent to approximately 10 % of Antarctic ice mass loss inferred for the previous decade. This reinforces earlier work indicating that ice histories characterized by relatively high excess ice volume at the Last Glacial Maximum may be introducing significant error in estimates of modern melt rates. Regarding correction (2), a spatially invariant scaling has commonly been used to convert GIA-corrected ice height changes obtained from satellite altimetry into ice volume estimates. We adopt modeling results based on a projection of Antarctic ice mass flux over the next 40 years to demonstrate a spatial variability in the scaling of up to 10 % across the ice sheet. Furthermore, using these calculations, we find an error in the projected net ice volume change of up to 4.5 mm GMSL equivalent forty years after present, with most of the difference arising in areas of West Antarctica above mantle zones of low viscosity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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