MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1648755393 · doi:10.1029/2002gl014855

Modeling CFC inventories and formation rates of Labrador Sea Water

2003· article· en· W1648755393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claus W. Böning, Monika Rhein, Joachim Dengg, C. Dorow

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsNorth Atlantic oscillationChlorofluorocarbonClimatologyEnvironmental scienceLagAtmospheric sciencesOceanographyGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high‐resolution model of the North Atlantic Ocean is used to examine the potential of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) inventories for calculating the rate of Labrador Sea Water (LSW) formation. While the simulated CFC‐11 inventory and its geographical distribution in 1997 is fairly similar to observations, the model indicates pronounced variations in the history of CFC uptake, reflecting pulsations in LSW renewal in response to changes in wintertime atmospheric conditions. The LSW formation rate based on the volume of newly homogenized water during a winter season varies between 0 Sv and 11 Sv, and it is correlated (with a lag of 1 year) with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) Index. The CFC‐based estimate of the mean LSW formation rate is 3.5–4.4 Sv, approximately representing the mean volumetric formation rate (4.3 Sv) for the period 1970–1997.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207