MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009640930 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2001.9649678

Parametrization schemes of incident radiation in the North Water polynya

2001· article· en· W2009640930 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Hanesiak, David G. Barber, Tim Papakyriakou, Peter J. Minnett

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkyParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Environmental scienceAtmosphere (unit)Flux (metallurgy)ClimatologyArcticAtmospheric sciencesSea iceEarth's energy budgetMeteorologyRadiationRadiative transferGeologyGeographyOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Surface incident radiation is a critical component of the Arctic surface energy balance making it important for sea‐ice model parametrizations to properly account for these fluxes. In this article, we test the performance of various incident short‐wave (K?) and long‐wave (L?) flux parametrizations using unique observations from the 1998 International North Water (NOW) Polynya Project between March and July. The dataset includes hourly observations over terrestrial, fast‐ice and full marine polynya environments allowing for parametrization comparisons between each environment and determination of any seasonal biases. Performance testing is highly dependent on observed input parameters that contain relative errors, however, significant differences between the marine and fast‐ice fluxes are evident. Results are very similar between the terrestrial and fast‐ice sites. The best K? clear‐sky schemes underestimate fluxes in the colder season and overestimate them in the warm season, with greater biases in the marine setting. The K? cloudy‐sky results suggest a similar cold and warm season bias but with greater magnitudes, especially in the marine environment. The K? cloudy‐sky schemes require seasonal improvements, especially in the marine atmosphere. The L? clear‐sky fluxes were generally overestimated during the colder season. Accounting for a less emissive atmosphere resulted in better flux approximations in all environments. L? cloudy‐sky fluxes were generally underestimated. Adjusting the cloudy‐sky emissivity improved the estimated fluxes, however, results were very different in the marine setting. The L? cloudy‐sky parametrizations may require re‐evaluation due to a consistent negative bias as the observed flux increases.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207