Comment on egusphere-2025-1942
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Ocean-driven basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves plays an important role in the mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ice shelf cavity-resolving ocean models are a valuable tool for understanding ice shelf-ocean interactions and for simulating projections of ice shelf and ocean states under future climate. Designed to assess the current state of ice shelf-ocean modelling, the second Ice Shelf-Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, ISOMIP+, consists of 12 ocean model configurations submitted with a common, idealised experimental setup. Here, we focus on the experiments Ocean0-2 (Asay-Davis et al., 2016), which are ocean models with idealised, static ice shelf geometries, but where the ocean reaches a balance with prescribed far-field ocean conditions. Different coefficient values are used for each model in the melting parameterisation to achieve a common, tuned melt rate since the models cover a range of types of vertical coordinates, ice-ocean boundary layer treatments, and numerical schemes. These model differences lead to spread in the resultant ocean properties, circulation, boundary layer structure and spatial distribution of melting. We also highlight similarities between models, such as a shared linear relationship across most models between melt rate and overturning and barotropic streamfunctions, demonstrating a robust relationship between melt and circulation across models and forcing conditions. The ISOMIP+ results provide a systematic comparison of ice shelf cavity-capable ocean models. However, we also demonstrate the need for realistic ice shelf-ocean model intercomparison projects (some already underway) to assess model biases and inter-model variation against sparse observations. Further research is needed to understand the differences between models and further improve our modelled representations of the ice-ocean boundary layer and ice shelf cavity circulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.381 | 0.244 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".