MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496718030 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2015.1050352

Effects of Spectral Nudging on Oceanic States in a Coarse-Resolution Model

2015· article· en· W1496718030 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zeliang Wang, Guoqi Han, Frédéric Dupont

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologySea surface temperatureEnvironmental scienceTemperature salinity diagramsSalinityDegree (music)Atmospheric sciencesGeologyOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 1-degree global model is used to investigate the skill of spectral nudging at coarse resolution by performing two numerical experiments, one with spectral nudging and the other without. In the spectral nudging experiment, the model temperature and salinity are nudged to an observed climatological monthly-mean field. The study compares the model mean state, as well as the interannual and decadal variability of oceanic quantities with observations, (e.g., sea surface height (SSH) and sea surface temperature (SST)). Spectral nudging is found to be effective in constraining model drift from the observed mean state of temperature and salinity in the global ocean, which has been reported in previous studies. The present study further shows that spectral nudging significantly improves the model skill of topostrophy (a measure of currents flowing along the topography) in water depth below 2000 m with no clear improvement elsewhere. Despite its known ability to damp oceanic variability at various time scales, spectral nudging can still represent the interannual and decadal variability of SSH and SST well, to a degree comparable to the other experiment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207