Source and Pathway of the Western Arctic Upper Halocline in a Data-Constrained Coupled Ocean and Sea Ice Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A coupled ocean and sea ice model is used to investigate dense water (DW) formation in the Chukchi and Bering shelves and the pathways by which this water feeds the upper halocline. Two 1992–2008 data-constrained solutions at 9- and 4-km horizontal grid spacing show that 1) winter sea ice growth results in brine rejection and DW formation; 2) the DW flows primarily down Barrow and Central–Herald Canyons in the form of bottom-trapped, intermittent currents to depths of 50–150 m from the late winter to late summer seasons; and 3) eddies with diameters ~ 30 km carry the cold DW from the shelf break into the Canada Basin interior at depths of 50–150 m. The 4-km data-constrained solution does not show eddy transport across the Chukchi Shelf at shallow depths; instead, advection of DW downstream of polynya regions is driven by a strong (~0.1 m s−1) mean current on the Chukchi Shelf. Upper halocline water (UHW) formation rate was obtained from two methods: one is based on satellite data and on a simple parameterized approach, and the other is computed from the authors’ model solution. The two methods yield 5740 ±1420 km3 yr−1 and 4190–4860 ±1440 km3 yr−1, respectively. These rates imply a halocline replenishment period of 10–21 yr. Passive tracers also show that water with highest density forms in the Gulf of Anadyr and along the eastern Siberian coast immediately north of the Bering Strait. These results provide a coherent picture of the seasonal development of UHW at high spatial and temporal resolutions and serve as a guide for improving understanding of water-mass formation in the western Arctic Ocean.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".