MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045070146 · doi:10.1175/2007jpo3807.1

How Does Labrador Sea Water Enter the Deep Western Boundary Current?

2008· article· en· W2045070146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaime B. Palter, M. Susan Lozier, Kara L. Lavender

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOcean gyreBoundary currentWater massEddyOceanographyGeologyOcean currentFlux (metallurgy)Current (fluid)ClimatologySubtropicsGeographyTurbulenceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Labrador Sea Water (LSW), a dense water mass formed by convection in the subpolar North Atlantic, is an important constituent of the meridional overturning circulation. Understanding how the water mass enters the deep western boundary current (DWBC), one of the primary pathways by which it exits the subpolar gyre, can shed light on the continuity between climate conditions in the formation region and their downstream signal. Using the trajectories of (profiling) autonomous Lagrangian circulation explorer [(P)ALACE] floats, operating between 1996 and 2002, three processes are evaluated for their role in the entry of Labrador Sea Water in the DWBC: 1) LSW is formed directly in the DWBC, 2) eddies flux LSW laterally from the interior Labrador Sea to the DWBC, and 3) a horizontally divergent mean flow advects LSW from the interior to the DWBC. A comparison of the heat flux associated with each of these three mechanisms suggests that all three contribute to the transformation of the boundary current as it transits the Labrador Sea. The formation of LSW directly in the DWBC and the eddy heat flux between the interior Labrador Sea and the DWBC may play leading roles in setting the interannual variability of the exported water mass.

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 score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207