MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975326357 · doi:10.1029/01eo00365

Multinational effort studies differences among arctic ocean models

2001· article· en· W1975326357 on OpenAlexaff
Andrey Proshutinsky, Michael Steele, Jinlun Zhang, G. Holloway, Nadja Steiner, Sirpa Häkkinen, David M. Holland, Ruediger Gerdes, C. Koeberle, Michael Kärcher, Mark A. Johnson, Wieslaw Maslowski, Waldemar Walczowski, W. D. Hibler, Jia Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersInternational Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, FairbanksNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArcticClimatologyThe arcticEnvironmental scienceClimate changeClimate modelGeneral Circulation ModelGlobeThermohaline circulationOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic Ocean is an important component of the global climate system. The processes occurring in the Arctic Ocean affect the rate of deep and bottom water formation in the convective regions of the high North Atlantic and influence ocean circulation across the globe. This fact is highlighted by global climate modeling studies that consistently show the Arctic to be one of the most sensitive regions to climate change. But an identification of the differences among models and model systematic errors in the Arctic Ocean remains unchecked, despite being essential to interpreting the simulation results and their implications for climate variability. For this reason, the Arctic Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (AOMIP), an international effort, was recently established to carry out a thorough analysis of model differences and errors. The geographical focus of this effort is shown in Figure 1.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations52
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207