MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058938007 · doi:10.1175/jcli3647.1

Are “Great Salinity Anomalies” Advective?

2006· article· en· W2058938007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin R. Wadley, Grant R. Bigg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOcean gyreAdvectionSalinityGeologyOceanographyClimatologyAnomaly (physics)HadCM3Ocean currentWater massClimate changeGCM transcription factorsGeneral Circulation Model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract “Great Salinity Anomalies” (GSAs) have been observed to propagate around the North Atlantic subpolar gyre. Similar anomalies occur in the Third Hadley Centre Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean GCM (HadCM3) of preindustrial climate. It has been hypothesized that these salinity anomalies result from the advection of anomalously low salinity waters around the subpolar gyre. Here, the consequences of using passive tracers in the HadCM3 climate model to tag the anomalously low salinity water associated with a GSA in the Greenland and Labrador Seas are reported. Rather than predominantly advecting around the modeled subpolar gyre in accordance with the upper-ocean salinity anomaly, the tracers mix to intermediate depths, before becoming incorporated into the model's North Atlantic Deep Water. Horizontal advection of the tracer in the upper ocean is limited to around 1000 km, compared with the gyre-scale propagation of the salinity anomalies. It is concluded that GSAs are unlikely to be caused by the advection of salinity anomalies; rather anomalous oceanic currents or surface fluxes are responsible.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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