MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153634200

State of the Arctic October 2006

2006· article· en· W2153634200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Richter‐Menge, James E. Overland, Andrey Proshutinsky, V. Romanovsky, Lennart Bengtsson, Lawson W. Brigham, Mark B. Dyurgerov, Jean‐Claude Gascard, Sebastian Gerland, Rune Grand Graversen, C. HaHaas, Michael Kärcher, Peter Kuhry, James A Maslanik, Humfrey Melling, Wieslaw Maslowski, J. Morison, Donald K. Perovich, Rajmund Przybylak, Volker Rachold, Ignatius Rigor, A. I. Shiklomanov, Julienne Strœve, Donald M. Walker, John E. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNOAA Pacific Marine Environmental LaboratoryNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsState (computer science)GeographyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This State of the Arctic Report presents a review of recent data by an international group of scientists who developed a consensus on the information content and reliability. The report highlights data primarily from 2000 to 2005 with a first look at winter 2006, providing an update to some of the records of physical processes discussed in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA, 2004, 2005). Of particular note: • Atmospheric climate patterns are shifting (Fig. 1). The late winter/spring pattern for 2000–2005 had new hot spots in northeast Canada and the East Siberian Sea relative to 1980–1999. Late winter 2006, however, shows a return to earlier climate patterns, with warm temperatures in the extended region near Svalbard. • Ocean salinity and temperature profiles at the North Pole and in the Beaufort Sea, which changed abruptly in the 1990s, show that conditions since 2000 have relaxed toward the pre-1990 climatology, although 2001–2004 has seen an increase in northward ocean heat transport through Bering Strait (Fig. 2), which is thought to impact sea ice loss. • Sea ice extent continues to decrease. The sea ice extent in September 2005 was the minimum observed in summer during the satellite era (beginning in 1979), marking an unprecedented series of extreme ice extent minima beginning in 2002 (Fig. 3). The sea ice extent in March 2006 was also the minimum observed in winter during the satellite era. • Tundra vegetation greenness increased, primarily due to an increase in the abundance of shrubs. Boreal forest vegetation greenness decreased, possibly due to drought conditions (Fig. 4). • There is increasing interest in the stability of the Greenland ice sheet. The velocity of outlet glaciers increased in 2005 relative to 2000 and 1995, but uncertainty remains with regard to the total mass balance. • Permafrost temperatures continue to increase. However, data on changes in the active layer thickness (the relatively thin layer of ground between the surface and permafrost that undergoes seasonal freezing and thawing) are less conclusive. While some of the sites show a barely noticeable increasing trend in the thickness of the active layer, most of them do not. • Globally, 2005 was the warmest year in the instrumental record (beginning in 1880), with the Arctic providing a large contribution toward this increase. Many of the trends documented in the ACIA are continuing, but some are not. Taken collectively, the observations presented in this report indicate that during 2000–2005 the Arctic system showed signs of continued warming. However, there are a few indications that certain elements may be recovering and returning to recent climatological norms (for example, the central Arctic Ocean and some wind patterns). These mixed tendencies further illustrate the sensitivity and complexity of the Arctic physical system. They underline the importance of maintaining and expanding efforts to observe and better understand this important component of the climate system to provide accurate predictions of its future state.

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)0.000
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207