MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1697910908 · doi:10.1029/2003gc000536

The Labrador Sea Deep Convection Experiment data collection

2003· article· en· W1697910908 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerd Krahmann, Martin Visbeck, William M. Smethie, Eric A. D’Asaro, Peter B. Rhines, R. Allyn Clarke, J. R. Lazier, Russ E. Davis, Pearn P. Niiler, Peter Guest, Jens Meincke, G. W. K. Moore, Robert S. Pickart, W. Brechner Owens, Mark D. Prater, Ian A. Renfrew, Friedrich Schott

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Geophysics Geosystems · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBedford Institute of Oceanography
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia UniversityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyDeep convectionConvectionMeteorologyDeep seaClimatologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1996 and 1998, a concerted effort was made to study the deep open ocean convection in the Labrador Sea. Both in situ observations and numerical models were employed with close collaboration between the researchers in the fields of physical oceanography, boundary layer meteorology, and climate. A multitude of different methods were used to observe the state of ocean and atmosphere and determine the exchange between them over the experiment's period. The Labrador Sea Deep Convection Experiment data collection aims to assemble the observational data sets in order to facilitate the exchange and collaboration between the various projects and new projects for an overall synthesis. A common file format and a browsable inventory have been used so as to simplify the access to the data.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Geophysics GeosystemsSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207