MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124164382 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsp041

Comparison of in situ time-series of temperature with gridded sea surface temperature datasets in the North Atlantic

2009· article· en· W2124164382 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah L. Hughes, N. Penny Holliday, Eugene Colbourne, Vladimir Ozhigin, Héðinn Valdimarsson, Svein Østerhus, Karen Helen Wiltshire

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsHuntsman Marine Science Centre
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationMet OfficeNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsSea surface temperatureClimatologyEnvironmental scienceProxy (statistics)In situSurface air temperatureSeries (stratigraphy)Climate changeOceanographyGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hughes, S. L., Holliday, N. P., Colbourne, E., Ozhigin, V., Valdimarsson, H., Østerhus, S., and Wiltshire, K. 2009. Comparison of in situ time-series of temperature with gridded sea surface temperature datasets in the North Atlantic. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1467–1479. Analysis of the effects of climate variability and climate change on the marine ecosystem is difficult in regions where long-term observations of ocean temperature are sparse or unavailable. Gridded sea surface temperature (SST) products, based on a combination of satellite and in situ observations, can be used to examine variability and long-term trends because they provide better spatial coverage than the limited sets of long in situ time-series. SST data from three gridded products (Reynolds/NCEP OISST.v2., Reynolds ERSST.v3, and the Hadley Centre HadISST1) are compared with long time-series of in situ measurements from ICES standard sections in the North Atlantic and Nordic Seas. The variability and trends derived from the two data sources are examined, and the usefulness of the products as a proxy for subsurface conditions is discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207