MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408431993 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-12705

Properly integrating vertical land motion with sea-level change – towards robust projections of relative sea-level rise 

2025· preprint· en· W4408431993 on OpenAlexaff
Philip S. J. Minderhoud, Katharina Seeger, Manoochehr Shirzaei, Pietro Teatini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea level riseGeodesyRelative motionSea levelSea level changeEnvironmental scienceMotion (physics)Climate changeMathematicsOceanographyGeographyGeologyPhysicsMechanicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal lowlands in the world increasingly face accelerating rates of relative sea-level rise, as global sea level rises and coastal land subsidence increases. Originating from both natural and anthropogenic processes, land subsidence (i.e. downward vertical land motion) is particularly prominent in densely populated coastal-deltaic settings where human activities can accelerate subsidence rates to several centimetres or even decimetres per year, thereby dominating local, contemporary relative sea-level rise. Proper inclusion of vertical land motion dynamics into sea-level change projects, combined with high-accurate and correctly referenced coastal elevation data, is crucial to accurately project relative sea-level change in these critical, densely populated coastal areas.Recent advancements in satellite-based InSAR data acquisition and processing capacity provide insights into contemporary vertical land motion dynamics at unprecedented spatial scale, complementary to traditional measurements of vertical land motion by e.g. tide gauges and GNSS stations. However, it requires a robust InSAR-data processing framework that ensures internal consistency of SAR data and rigorously assesses output accuracy. In addition, correct interpretation of InSAR results is important as observations provide reflector movements which may not align with land surface movements, particularly in urban areas. This poses the risks of oversimplification and misinterpretation when linking InSAR results to sea-level change.In addition, coastal subsidence is the result of various subsurface processes at different depths and can be highly non-linear over time, unlike sea-level change, resulting in complex spatio-temporal patterns and dynamics. This makes projection of non-linear vertical land motions and relative coastal elevation change not straightforward and robust strategies have yet to be developed. We advocate the development of standardized InSAR (post-)processing workflows and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve the observation and proper interpretation of vertical land movement, particularly in coastal cities and river deltas. We also discuss how to move from contemporary observations of coastal vertical land motion towards disentangling drivers and processes, move to process-based projections of coastal subsidence and integrate them in robust projections of future relative sea-level changes and coastal exposure assessments.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.074 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207