MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6922126154 · doi:10.11575/prism/37509

Modelling long term ice sheet changes to understand the stability of the Greenland Ice Sheet in a warmer world

2020· other· en· W6922126154 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridCompute CanadaUniversity of CalgaryNational Center for Atmospheric Research
KeywordsGreenland ice sheetIce sheetIce-sheet modelEemianCryosphereFuture sea levelIce coreArctic ice packAntarctic ice sheetIce divide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Greenland Ice Sheet is under stress with the rising temperature. Ice sheet sensitivity to temperature changes and its contribution to global sea level rise can be estimated using ice sheet/climate models. This study combines an ice dynamics model and an isotope tracer model to carry out long-term coupled ice-sheet/climate simulations to investigate the vulnerability of the Greenland ice sheet to higher temperatures during the Eemian warming. I also examine how Eemian melting may have altered isotopic ratios and temperature reconstructions. The simulations are benchmarked against NEEM and Summit ice core observations to provide validation of model performance. I find that there is ice in central Greenland for climates up to 12ºC higher than present. Greenland’s contribution due to Eemian sea level most likely ranges between 2.8 to 4.3 m, associated with temperature anomalies from 5 to 9ºC. Melt-induced isotopic modifications can cause overestimation of 0.1-2ºC warming in proxy records.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→