MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047027756 · doi:10.1029/2002gl015366

How do high‐latitude North Atlantic climate signals the crossover between the Deep Western Boundary Current and the Gulf Stream?

2003· article· en· W2047027756 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiayan Yang, Terrence M. Joyce

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary currentGeologyOcean gyreBathymetryWater massJet streamGulf StreamInflowRossby waveClimatologyZonal and meridionalForcing (mathematics)OceanographyCurrent (fluid)Ocean currentJet (fluid)SubtropicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple model is used to examine how the presence of a continental slope along the western boundary, and wind‐driven gyres, especially the Gulf Stream (GS) jet, affect the pathways of water‐mass flow and wave propagation in the abyssal ocean. Two types of forcing: an interior source and a boundary inflow (to mimic the Labrador Sea Water and the marginal‐sea overflow), are considered here. Both topography and wind‐driven gyres considerably alter how the water mass spreads from the source (in the steady state case) and how transient signals propagate to the unforced regions. Sloping bathymetry near the western boundary allows for meridional propagation of topographic waves. The GS jet creates a strong meridional PV gradient which could partially block the southward water‐mass transport and wave propagation. The effectiveness of the crossover to disrupt the lower layer response depends on the type of high latitude water mass forcing.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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