MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2067158559 · doi:10.1029/2004jc002814

Simulation of CFCs in the North Atlantic Ocean using an adiabatically corrected ocean circulation model

2006· article· en· W2067158559 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jun Zhao, Jinyu Sheng, Richard J. Greatbatch, Kumiko Azetsu‐Scott, E. Peter Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologyBoundary currentForcing (mathematics)Ocean currentOcean general circulation modelTransectEnvironmental scienceFlux (metallurgy)General Circulation ModelNorth Atlantic oscillationOceanographySea surface temperatureCirculation (fluid dynamics)Thermohaline circulationGeologyAtmospheric sciencesClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three‐dimensional ocean circulation model is used to examine the uptake, spreading and interannual variability of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the North Atlantic Ocean during the 50‐year period from 1948 to 1997. The model is forced by climatological and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) related monthly mean surface forcing, and a realistic, time‐varying air‐sea flux of CFCs. Different from previous studies, the model uses the modified semiprognostic method to correct for systematic bias, leading to improvements in the modeled ocean circulation near the western boundary. Comparisons are made between simulated concentrations and observations made along three World Ocean Circulation Experiment transects, and between the simulated inventory of CFCs in the Labrador Sea and estimates based on observations. The model reproduces the general structure of the observed concentrations, including the concentration maxima associated with Labrador Sea Water (LSW) near the western boundary, although quantitative comparisons indicate that the model CFC concentrations associated with LSW are generally too high. The equatorward spreading rate of LSW is estimated from CFC effective age and found to be about 1.3 cm s−1, in agreement with observational estimates. We also discuss the close relationship between the NAO and interannual variability in the uptake and inventory of CFCs in the Labrador Sea, and the spreading of CFCs along the western boundary.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→