MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018567030 · doi:10.1002/env.912

A spatio‐temporal model for Antarctic sea ice formation

2008· article· en· W2018567030 on OpenAlexafffund
Theodoro Koulis, Mary E. Thompson, E. LeDrew

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmetrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsActuaUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and TechnologyMcGill University
KeywordsSea iceSea ice concentrationClimatologyDrift iceVariation (astronomy)Arctic ice packAntarctic sea iceSeries (stratigraphy)Sea ice thicknessEnvironmental scienceCryosphereOceanographyGeologyAtmospheric sciencesPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The temporal variability of polar sea ice is complex and closely linked to global climate. The amount of sea ice over an area can have a significant effect on the energies transferred between the atmosphere and the ocean. Statistics derived from sea ice observations are therefore of great interest to scientists. We showcase a new method of analysis which may be used to examine the annual variability in sea ice formation. We demonstrate our method using sea ice concentration images derived from Earth‐orbiting satellites that span several decades. The growth and melt of Antarctic sea ice is modelled using a simple two parameter spatial nearest neighbour process that treats ice and water as two species competing for territory. Simulations of the model are used to estimate two time series representing rates of competition. With techniques of functional data analysis, these series may be used to detect both amplitude and phase variation, and to isolate major modes of annual variation in sea ice formation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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