MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140783961 · doi:10.1029/2011gl046863

The 1992-2009 transport variability of the East Greenland-Irminger Current at 60°N

2011· article· en· W2140783961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathalie Daniault, Herlé Mercier, Pascale Lherminier

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)OceanographyClimatologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] The East Greenland Irminger Current (EGIC) decadal transport variability likely influences deep convection intensity in the Labrador and Irminger Seas but is poorly known yet. The EGIC transport west of the 2000 m isobath was estimated, for the first time, between 1992 and 2009 by combining surface geostrophic velocities derived from altimetry with an estimate of the vertical structure of the transport variability statistically determined from a moored array deployed in 2004–2006. The reconstructed 17-year time series of the EGIC transport was then validated against independent estimates confirming that, indeed, the vertical distribution of the EGIC variability has not changed significantly over the last two decades. The 1992–2009 mean transport is 19.5 Sv with a standard error of 0.3 Sv (1 Sv = 106 m3 s−1). In 1992–1996, the EGIC transport was close to the average. Over the following decade (1997–2005), the EGIC transport declined by 3 Sv (15%) so that the 2004–2006 mean transport inferred from the moored array is 2.2 Sv (10%) less than the 1992–2009 mean. It was followed by a period of higher transport. The seasonal to interannual transport variability is coherent with the variability of the windstress curl at the center of the Irminger Sea.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207