MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043983854 · doi:10.1002/2014jc010140

The refreezing of melt ponds on <scp>A</scp>rctic sea ice

2015· article· en· W2043983854 on OpenAlexaff
Daniela Flocco, D. L. Feltham, Eleanor Bailey, David Schröeder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsMelt pondSea iceFast iceArctic ice packSea ice thicknessAntarctic sea iceGeologyOceanographyEnvironmental scienceIce-albedo feedbackSalinityCryosphereAtmospheric sciencesClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The presence of melt ponds on the surface of Arctic sea ice significantly reduces its albedo, inducing a positive feedback leading to sea ice thinning. While the role of melt ponds in enhancing the summer melt of sea ice is well known, their impact on suppressing winter freezing of sea ice has, hitherto, received less attention. Melt ponds freeze by forming an ice lid at the upper surface, which insulates them from the atmosphere and traps pond water between the underlying sea ice and the ice lid. The pond water is a store of latent heat, which is released during refreezing. Until a pond freezes completely, there can be minimal ice growth at the base of the underlying sea ice. In this work, we present a model of the refreezing of a melt pond that includes the heat and salt balances in the ice lid, trapped pond, and underlying sea ice. The model uses a two‐stream radiation model to account for radiative scattering at phase boundaries. Simulations and related sensitivity studies suggest that trapped pond water may survive for over a month. We focus on the role that pond salinity has on delaying the refreezing process and retarding basal sea ice growth. We estimate that for a typical sea ice pond coverage in autumn, excluding the impact of trapped ponds in models overestimates ice growth by up to 265 million km 3 , an overestimate of 26%.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207