MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Estimation of Total Surface and Subsurface Meltwater Amounts Across Greenland Ice Sheet

2024· article· en· W4402260715 on OpenAlexaff
Alamgir Hossan, Andreas Colliander, Julie Z. Miller, Shawn J. Marshall, J. T. Harper, B. Vandecrux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeltwaterGreenland ice sheetIce sheetGeologyIce streamPhysical geographyCryosphereClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologyGlacierSea iceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) melting has been a significant concern in the warming climate. Accurate quantification of total surface and subsurface meltwater amount across the pan-Greenland scale is crucial to understanding GrIS mass balance, thus better projecting global sea level rise. We used multi-year L-band observations from the NASA Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission to quantify the GrIS surface and sub-surface meltwater amount and examine their spatiotemporal variability. We employed an empirical algorithm to detect surface and subsurface melt events. Then, we applied a physics-based retrieval algorithm to estimate the intensity and physical properties of the melt events. Finally, we validated the retrieval by meltwater derived from a locally calibrated energy balance model with in situ observations from the PROMICE automatic weather station (AWS) network. The retrieval and validation results are presented, which demonstrate generally a good agreement with the meltwater amounts derived from in situ observations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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