MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170147446 · doi:10.1175/2010jcli3098.1

Southern Ocean Response to Strengthening Winds in an Eddy-Permitting Global Climate Model

2010· article· en· W2170147446 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Spence, John C. Fyfe, Álvaro Montenegro, Andrew J. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of New South WalesCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsClimatologyCircumpolar starGeologyClimate modelContext (archaeology)LatitudeOcean currentSea iceClimate changeOceanographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A global climate model with horizontal resolutions in the ocean ranging from relatively coarse to eddy permitting is used to investigate the resolution dependence of the Southern Ocean response to poleward intensifying winds through the past and present centuries. The higher-resolution simulations show poleward migration of distinct ocean fronts associated with a more highly localized near-surface temperature response than in the lower-resolution simulations. The higher-resolution simulations also show increasing southward eddy heat transport, less high-latitude cooling, and greater sea ice loss than the lower-resolution simulations. For all resolutions, from relatively coarse to eddy permitting, there is poleward migration of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current in the Atlantic and the western half of the Indian basin. Finally, zonal transports associated with the Antarctic Circumpolar Current are shown to be sensitive to resolution, and this is discussed in the context of recent observed change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations61
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207