MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047936177 · doi:10.3137/oc312.2009

Estimate of the steric contribution to global sea level rise from a comparison of the WOCE one‐time survey with 2006–2008 Argo observations

2009· article· en· W2047936177 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Howard J. Freeland, Denis Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsNorth Pacific Marine Science Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgoSea levelAltimeterTemperature salinity diagramsClimatologyGeologyGeodesyOceanographySalinity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known from observations by altimetric satellites (predominantly TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason‐1) that global sea level is rising. What is less well known is exactly how the observed sea level rise is partitioned between a steric contribution (sea level rising because of changes in ambient temperature and salinity) and a contribution arising from the addition of new water mass to the oceans. Strictly speaking, such a separation is not possible because of the non‐linearity in the equation of state for sea water, but in practice the non‐linearities are sufficiently small to allow this separation as a very good first approximation. A careful comparison of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) one‐time survey with recent observations by the Argo array indicate a steric component to sea level rise of 2.2 mm y–1 between the early 1990s and 2006 to 2008. This is a significantly larger rise rate than previously estimated and, along with recent estimates of melt rate from ice sheets, is in much closer agreement with the total rise rate as reported by altimetric satellites, 3.2 ± 0.4 mm y–1 over this period.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207