MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coherent Eddies in the Labrador Sea Observed from a Mooring

2002· article· en· W2168859086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan M. Lilly, Peter B. Rhines

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Oceanography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddyAnticycloneGeologyOceanographyMooringCurrent (fluid)ClimatologyWater massGeophysicsMeteorologyTurbulencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During June–November 1994, a mooring in the central Labrador Sea near the former Ocean Weather Station Bravo recorded a half-dozen anomalous events that prove to be two different types of coherent eddies. Comparisons with simple analytical models are used to classify these events as coherent eddies on the basis of their velocity signatures. The first clear examples of long-lived convectively generated eddies are reported. These four small (radius ∼5–15 km) eddies are exclusively anticyclonic, with cold, fresh middepth potential temperature (θ) and salinity (S) cores surrounded by azimuthal currents of ∼15 cm s−1. Their θ/S properties identify them unambiguously as the products of wintertime deep convection in the interior Labrador Sea. Compared with eddies in other regions, these anticyclones are unusual for their strong surface expressions and composite θ/S cores. Two warm cyclones are also seen; these are larger (radius ∼15 km) than the anticyclones and about as energetic (currents ∼15 cm s−1). Their θ/S and potential vorticity properties suggest that they are created by stretching a column of water from the Irminger Current, which surrounds the Labrador Sea on three sides.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations113
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical OceanographySame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207