Lateral Heat Exchange after the Labrador Sea Deep Convection in 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mechanisms through which convected water restratifies in the Labrador Sea are still under debate. The Labrador Sea restratification after deep convection in the 2007/08 winter is studied with an eddy-resolving numerical model. The modeled mixed layer depth during wintertime resembles the Argo observed mixed layer very well, and the lateral heat flux during the subsequent restratification is in line with observations. The Irminger rings (IRs) are reproduced with fresher caps above the 300-m depths, and they are identified and tracked automatically. The model underestimates both the number of IRs in the convection area and the heat they carry. The underestimation is most likely caused by the errors in the direction of the west Greenland currents in the model, which causes more IRs propagating westward, and only the IRs originating south of 61.5°N are able to propagate southward, yet with speed much slower than observed speed. The model still observed three eddies propagating into the convection area during the restratification phase in 2008, and their thermal contribution ranges from 1% to 4% if the estimation is made at the time when they enter the convection area. If all newly generated eddies are considered, then the ensemble-mean contributions by the IRs become 5.3%. The more detailed and direct heat flux by IRs is difficult to derive because of the strong fluctuation of the identified eddy radius. Nevertheless, the modeled lateral heat flux is largely composed of the boundary current eddies and convective eddies, thus it is possible for the model to maintain an acceptable thermal balance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".