Contributions of core, mantle and climatological processes to Earth’s polar motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Earth’s spin axis slowly moves relative to the crust over time. A 120-year-long record of this polar motion from astronomical and more modern geodetic measurements displays interannual and multidecadal fluctuations of 20 to 40 milliarcseconds superimposed on a secular trend of about 3 milliarcseconds per year. Earth’s polar motion is thought to be driven by various surface and interior processes, but how these processes operate and interact to produce the observed signal remains enigmatic. Here we show that predictions made by an ensemble of physics-informed neural networks trained on measurements to capture geophysical processes can explain the main features of the observed polar motion. We find that glacial isostatic adjustment and mantle convection primarily account for the secular trend. Mass redistribution on the Earth’s surface—for example, ice melting and global changes in water storage—yields a relatively weak trend but explains about 90% of the interannual and multidecadal variations. We also find that core processes contribute to both the secular trend and fluctuations in polar motion, either due to variations in torque at the core–mantle boundary or dynamical feedback of the core in response to surface mass changes. Our findings provide constraints on core–mantle interactions for which observations are rare and global ice mass balance over the past century and suggest feedback operating between climate-related surface processes and core dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".