MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009072266 · doi:10.1175/2010jpo4176.1

Circulation, Heat, and Freshwater Transport at 36°N in the Atlantic

2010· article· en· W2009072266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elaine L. McDonagh, Paula McLeod, Brian King, Harry L. Bryden, Sinhué Torres‐Valdés

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsOcean gyreOceanographyNorth Atlantic Deep WaterHydrographyMesoscale meteorologyGeologyThermohaline circulationGulf StreamRidgeBoundary currentClimatologyOcean currentCircumpolar deep waterGeostrophic windFlux (metallurgy)Subtropics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In May and June 2005, a transatlantic hydrographic section along 36°N was occupied. A velocity field is calculated using inverse methods. The derived 36°N circulation has an overturning transport (maximum in the overturning streamfunction) of 16.6 Sv (1 Sv ≡ 106 m3 s−1) at 1070 m. The heat transport across the section, 1.14 ± 0.12 PW, is partitioned into overturning and horizontal heat transports of 0.75 and 0.39 PW, respectively. The horizontal heat flux is set by variability at the gyre rather than by mesoscale. The freshwater flux across the section is 1.55 ± 0.18 Sv southward based on a 0.8-Sv flow from the Pacific through the Bering Strait at a salinity of 32.5 psu. The oceanic divergence of freshwater implies a net input of freshwater to the ocean of 0.75 Sv over the North Atlantic and Arctic between 36°N and the Bering Strait. Most (85%) of the recently ventilated upper North Atlantic Deep Water (water originating in the Labrador Sea) transport across the section occurs in the deep western boundary current rather than being associated with an interior pathway to the west of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207