MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025194223 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017446

Anomalous subarctic influence in the southern California Current during 2002

2003· article· en· W2025194223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven J. Bograd, Ronald J. Lynn

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubarctic climateCurrent (fluid)PycnoclineOceanographyWater massGeologyPlanktonSalinityBedrockSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A highly anomalous water mass of apparent subarctic origin, characterized by negative temperature and salinity anomalies, high concentrations of dissolved oxygen and inorganic nutrients, and unusually high chlorophyll fluorescence, was observed off southern California during summer 2002. This water mass was confined spatially to a narrow ribbon in the upper pycnocline: at a density of σt = 25.0 kg m−3 and ∼150–350 km offshore, within and seaward of the main California Current core. These observations are very similar to those made off the Oregon and Vancouver Island coasts at about the same time, implying a displacement of subarctic waters more than 1200 km equatorward within the California Current. The maintenance of strong water property anomalies over this distance demonstrates the efficacy of the California Current as a conduit of water masses and plankton. The magnitude of the anomalies observed in July 2002 suggest the occurrence of the largest subarctic intrusion into the California Current System in the 50+ year historical record and may reflect low‐frequency climate variability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207