Algorithms for Density, Potential Temperature, Conservative Temperature, and the Freezing Temperature of Seawater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Algorithms are presented for density, potential temperature, conservative temperature, and the freezing temperature of seawater. The algorithms for potential temperature and density (in terms of potential temperature) are updates to routines recently published by McDougall et al., while the algorithms involving conservative temperature and the freezing temperatures of seawater are new. The McDougall et al. algorithms were based on the thermodynamic potential of Feistel and Hagen; the algorithms in this study are all based on the “new extended Gibbs thermodynamic potential of seawater” of Feistel. The algorithm for the computation of density in terms of salinity, pressure, and conservative temperature produces errors in density and in the corresponding thermal expansion coefficient of the same order as errors for the density equation using potential temperature, both being twice as accurate as the International Equation of State when compared with Feistel’s new equation of state. An inverse function relating potential temperature to conservative temperature is also provided. The difference between practical salinity and absolute salinity is discussed, and it is shown that the present practice of essentially ignoring the difference between these two different salinities is unlikely to cause significant errors in ocean models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".