Assessing the Roles of Three Eddy Types in Restratifying the Labrador Sea after Deep Convection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Restratification after deep convection is one of the key factors in determining the temporal variability of dense water formation in the Labrador Sea. In the subsurface, it is primarily governed by lateral buoyancy fluxes during early spring. The roles of three different eddy types in this process are assessed using an idealized model of the Labrador Sea that simulates the restratification season. The first eddy type, warm-core Irminger rings, is shed from the boundary current along the west coast of Greenland. All along the coastline, the boundary current forms boundary current eddies. The third type, convective eddies, arises directly around the convection area. In the model, the latter two eddy types are together responsible for replenishing 30% of the winter heat loss within 6 months. Irminger rings add another 45% to this number. The authors’ results thus confirm that the presence of Irminger rings is essential for a realistic amount of restratification in this area. The model results are compared to observations using theoretical estimates of restratification time scales derived for the three eddy types. The time scales are also used to explain contradicting conclusions in previous studies on their respective roles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".