MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133509143 · doi:10.1175/jpo-d-11-0125.1

Horizontal Density Structure and Restratification of the Arctic Ocean Surface Layer

2012· article· en· W2133509143 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Mary‐Louise Timmermans, Sylvia T. Cole, John M. Toole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Polar ProgramsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDivision of Arctic SciencesJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyIsopycnalBaroclinityFrontogenesisOceanographyMixed layerBuoyancyCanada BasinArcticOcean dynamicsSea iceClimatologyOcean currentMesoscale meteorologyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ice-tethered profiler (ITP) measurements from the Arctic Ocean’s Canada Basin indicate an ocean surface layer beneath sea ice with significant horizontal density structure on scales of hundreds of kilometers to the order 1 km submesoscale. The observed horizontal gradients in density are dynamically important in that they are associated with restratification of the surface ocean when dense water flows under light water. Such restratification is prevalent in wintertime and competes with convective mixing upon buoyancy forcing (e.g., ice growth and brine rejection) and shear-driven mixing when the ice moves relative to the ocean. Frontal structure and estimates of the balanced Richardson number point to the likelihood of dynamical restratification by isopycnal tilt and submesoscale baroclinic instability. Based on the evidence here, it is likely that submesoscale processes play an important role in setting surface-layer properties and lateral density variability in the 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 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)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations131
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207