MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094453897 · doi:10.1029/01eo00311

Ocean Circulation and Climate—Observing and Modelling the Global Ocean

2001· article· en· W2094453897 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrographyClimatologyOcean currentOceanographyOcean observationsGeneral Circulation ModelAltimeterEnvironmental scienceSatelliteGeographyClimate changeMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) began with the goals of developing models and collecting the oceanographic data necessary to predict and monitor climate change. Early discussions of WOCE started in the late 1970s, and a full observational and modeling plan was gradually formulated over the course of the 1980s. WOCE seagoing work carried out in the 1990s spanned the global ocean, taking oceanographers to some of the most distant parts of the ocean to complete long hydrographic lines and deploy instruments. Satellite altimetry was also included in the plan, and the TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter was launched in 1992. In 1998, several hundred oceanographers gathered in Halifax, Canada, at a conference marking the end of the fieldwork phase of WOCE and the beginning of the analysis, interpretation, and modeling phase. Ocean Circulation and Climate—Observing and Modelling the Global Ocean had its genesis in that conference.

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.

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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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