MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404928192 · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-8535-2024

A fast surrogate model for 3D Earth glacial isostatic adjustment using Tensorflow (v2.8.0) artificial neural networks

2024· article· en· W4404928192 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ryan Love, Glenn A. Milne, Parviz Ajourlou, Soran Parang, Lev Tarasov, Konstantin Latychev

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsArtificial neural networkGlacial periodPost-glacial reboundArtificial intelligenceGeologyComputer scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) play a central role in the interpretation of various geologic and geodetic data to understand and simulate past and future changes in ice sheets and sea level, as well as to infer rheological properties of the deep Earth. During the past few decades, a major advance has been the development of models that include 3D Earth structure, as opposed to 1D spherically symmetric (SS) structure. However, a major limitation in employing 3D GIA models is their high computational expense. As such, we have developed a method using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and the Tensorflow library to predict the influence of 3D Earth models with the goal of more affordably exploring the parameter space of these models, specifically the radial (1D) viscosity profile to which the lateral variations are added. Our goal is to test whether the use of an ANN to produce a fast surrogate model can accurately predict the difference in GIA model outputs (i.e., relative sea level (RSL) and uplift rates) for the 3D case relative to the SS case. If so, the surrogate model can be used with a computationally efficient SS (Earth) GIA model to generate output that replicates that from a 3D (Earth) GIA model. Evaluation of the surrogate model performance for deglacial RSL indicates that it is able to provide useful estimates of this field throughout the parameter space when trained on only ≈15 % (≈50) of the parameter vectors considered (330 in total). We applied the surrogate model in a model–data comparison exercise using RSL data distributed along the North American coasts from the Canadian Arctic to the US Gulf Coast. We found that the surrogate model is able to successfully reproduce the model–data misfit values such that the region of minimum misfit either generally overlaps the 3D GIA model results or is within two increments of the radial viscosity model parameter space (defined here as lithosphere thickness, upper-mantle viscosity, and lower-mantle viscosity). The surrogate model can, therefore, be used to accurately explore this aspect of the 3D Earth model parameter space. In summary, this work demonstrates the utility of machine learning in 3D Earth GIA modelling, and so future work to expand on this initial proof-of-concept analysis is warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207