MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2160945476 · doi:10.1002/2013gl058247

Wind‐driven Arctic freshwater anomalies

2013· article· en· W2160945476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kial D. Stewart, Thomas W. N. Haine

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAnticycloneArcticClimatologyArctic dipole anomalyEnvironmental scienceArchipelagoThe arcticOceanographyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyArctic ice pack

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large freshwater (FW) anomalies have been observed in the Arctic FW budget and exports in the last decade but their origin is unclear. This letter examines if the large‐scale wind conditions might be responsible. We employ an idealized model forced by wind conditions that generate FW budget anomalies. Anticyclonic (cyclonic) winds cause an increase (decrease) of FW in the Western Arctic. For anticyclonic winds, the magnitude and timescale of the FW accumulation in the Western Arctic are similar to observations. Importantly, a cyclonic shift in the winds can only generate a realistically large release event if the Western Arctic is anomalously fresh beforehand. Given that the Western Arctic presently stores excess FW, the findings suggest that a present‐day shift to cyclonic winds will generate a large release of liquid FW from the Arctic through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→