MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161697442 · doi:10.1175/jcli3889.1

Future Projections of Landfast Ice Thickness and Duration in the Canadian Arctic

2006· article· en· W2161697442 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacqueline Dumas, Gregory M. Flato, Ross Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersArcticNet
KeywordsSea iceClimatologyArcticArctic ice packDownscalingSnowForcing (mathematics)Climate modelEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGeologyClimate changeOceanographyGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Projections of future landfast ice thickness and duration were generated for nine sites in the Canadian Arctic and one site on the Labrador coast with a simple downscaling technique that used a one-dimensional sea ice model driven by observationally based forcing and superimposed projected future climate change from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis global climate model (CGCM2). For the Canadian Arctic sites the downscaling approach indicated a decrease in maximum ice thickness of 30 and 50 cm and a reduction in ice cover duration of 1 and 2 months by 2041–60 and 2081–2100, respectively. In contrast, there is a slight increase in simulated landfast ice thickness and duration at Cartwright in the future due to its sensitivity to snow–ice formation with increased snowfall and to a projected slight cooling over this site (along the Labrador coast) by CGCM2. The magnitude of simulated changes in freeze-up and break-up date was largest for freeze up (e.g., 52 days later at Alert by 2081–2100), and freeze-up date changes exhibited much greater regional variability than break up, which was simulated to be 30 days earlier by 2081–2100 over the Canadian Arctic sites.

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 score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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