MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087073516 · doi:10.1117/1.jrs.7.073531

Trends in latent and sensible heat fluxes over the oceans surrounding the Arctic Ocean

2013· article· en· W2087073516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lejiang Yu, Zhanhai Zhang, Mingyu Zhou, Shiyuan Zhong, Donald H. Lenschow, Bingrui Li, Xianqiao Wang, Shi-Min Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Remote Sensing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLatent heatClimatologyArcticBayEnvironmental scienceAnomaly (physics)OceanographyHumidityNorth Atlantic oscillationSensible heatThe arcticArctic oscillationGeographyGeologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trends in latent and sensible heat fluxes (LHF and SHF) over the oceans surrounding the Arctic Ocean and the contributions of the Arctic Oscillation, the Arctic dipole anomaly, the third principal component, and the Pacific-North American pattern on them are investigated using the objectively analyzed air-sea fluxes (OAFlux) dataset from 1979 to 2008. Significant positive trends in LHF appear over western and northern European coasts and the coast of the Aleutian Islands, especially in autumn. Besides in summer, autumn and winter positive trends in LHF also exist over the coast of the western North Pacific Ocean; in summer, there is also a patch of positive trends over the central North Atlantic Ocean. On the contrary, negative trends in LHF change greatly in a year. There are main negative trend centers over the Barents Sea, the coast of northeast Canada, the Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and Hudson Bay, especially in summer and autumn. Trends in SHF are similar to those in LHF except for a small difference in area. There are significant correlations between the four indices and both LHF and SHF over these oceanic regions which result mainly from strong relationships between the sea–air-specific humidity and temperature differences and the four indices. The four indices only explain a small portion of the trends in LHF and SHF. The trends in air–sea-specific humidity and temperature differences are more closely associated with those in LHF and SHF than those in wind speed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Remote SensingSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207