MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400694600 · doi:10.1080/17538947.2024.2376253

Modeling pan-Arctic seasonal and interannual landfast sea ice thickness and snow depth between 1979 and 2021

2024· article· en· W4400694600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zihan Wang, Jiechen Zhao, Bin Cheng, Fengming Hui, Jie Su, Xiao Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Digital Earth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSea iceCryosphereArcticClimatologyArctic ice packSea ice thicknessEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationGeologyPhysical geographyOceanographyMeteorologyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landfast sea ice (LFSI) is sensitive to local climate change, making it an important component of the cryosphere system. In this study, the LFSI around the pan-Arctic domain was simulated from 1979 to 2021 using a well-validated snow and ice thermodynamic model (HIGHTSI) under the framework of the Fast Ice Prediction System (FIPS), forced by the ERA5 reanalysis. The simulation results agree well with the in-situ observations in the Canadian Arctic, with a mean error of −0.06 ± 0.29 m for ice thickness and −0.04 ± 0.12 m for snow depth. A decrease of −2.8 ± 0.4 cm/10a in thickness and −16.2 ± 1.5 km3/a in volume for the Arctic LFSI was modeled during this period. There was significant spatial variability among the different domains, with the fastest decline found in the Vilkitsky Strait. The modeled snow depth shows large interannual and spatial variations, which was confirmed by other modeling results. The spatiotemporal variations in both air temperature and precipitation are the driving factors for the multi-decadal variations in LFSI thickness. The decreasing air temperature during the 2010s aligned with a slower thickness decrease and a slight volume increase for LFSI, which agreed with the pan-Arctic sea ice pattern.

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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Digital EarthSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207