MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069009455 · doi:10.1029/2003eo300001

A long‐term circulation and water mass monitoring program for the Arctic Ocean

2003· article· en· W2069009455 on OpenAlexaffabout
Igor V. Polyakov, David Walsh, Igor Dmitrenko, R. Colony, Jennifer Hutchings, Leonid Timokhov, Mark A. Johnson, Eddy C. Carmack

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of Oceanography
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticClimatologyEnvironmental scienceTerm (time)Scale (ratio)The arcticOcean currentOceanographyOcean observationsClimate changeCirculation (fluid dynamics)MeteorologyGeographyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substantial changes have occurred in the Arctic over the last few decades. These changes are linked with the variability of external climate system in ways not yet fully understood. Unresolved issues concerning the driving processes and mechanisms behind these changes in the Arctic environment require further investigation. A major constraint on our ability to understand linkages between the Arctic Ocean and the global climate system is the scarcity of observational data. We have thus initiated efforts to establish a long‐term, mooring‐based observational system in the Eurasian and Canadian basins of the Arctic Ocean. A number of regional monitoring programs have elucidated local details of the circulation, but none has provided the large‐scale coverage proposed here (Figure l). The widely spaced array of moorings discussed here will emphasize the largest‐scale modes of variability over relevant time scales.

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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207