MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076348205 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017065

Formation and propagation of great salinity anomalies

2003· article· en· W2076348205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helmuth Haak, J. Jungclaus, Uwe Mikolajewicz, Mojib Latif

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversität HamburgChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsThermohaline circulationOceanographyNorth Atlantic Deep WaterGeologyArchipelagoSea iceClimatologyArctic ice packArctic sea ice declineSalinityArcticTemperature salinity diagramsArctic dipole anomalyAtlantic multidecadal oscillationDrift ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North Atlantic/Arctic ocean and sea ice variability for the period 1948–2001 is studied using a global Ocean General Circulation Model coupled to a dynamic/thermodynamic sea ice model forced by daily NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data [ Kalnay et al. , 1996 ]. Variability of Arctic sea ice properties is analysed, in particular the formation and propagation of sea ice thickness anomalies that are communicated via Fram Strait into the North Atlantic. These export events led to the Great Salinity Anomalies (GSA) of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s in the Labrador Sea (LS). All GSAs were found to be remotely excited in the Arctic, rather than by local atmospheric forcing over the LS. Sea ice and fresh water exports through the Canadian Archipelago (CAA) are found to be only of minor importance, except for the 1990s GSA. Part of the anomalies are tracked to the Newfoundland Basin, where they enter the North Atlantic Current. The experiments indicate only a minor impact of a single GSA event on the strength of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations132
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207