MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553168446 · doi:10.1029/2012gl053576

Seasonal forecasts of Arctic sea ice initialized with observations of ice thickness

2012· article· en· W1553168446 on OpenAlexaff
R. W. Lindsay, Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Priska A Hunkeler, N. T. Kurtz, John Paden, B. Panzer, J. G. Sonntag, James K. Yungel, Jinlun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceClimatologyArctic ice packSea ice thicknessArcticGeologySea ice concentrationEnvironmental scienceDrift iceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal forecasts of the September 2012 Arctic sea ice thickness and extent are conducted starting from 1 June 2012. An ensemble of forecasts is made with a coupled ice‐ocean model. For the first time, observations of the ice thickness are used to correct the initial ice thickness distribution to improve the initial conditions. Data from two airborne campaigns are used: NASA Operation IceBridge and SIZONet. The model was advanced through April and May using reanalysis data from 2012 and for June–September it was forced with reanalysis data from the previous seven summers. The ice extent in the corrected runs averaged lower in the Pacific sector and higher in the Atlantic sector compared to control runs with no corrections. The predicted total ice extent is 4.4 +/− 0.5 M km2, 0.2 M km2 less than that made with the control runs but 0.8 M km2 higher than the observed September extent.

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)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.291
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations67
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207