MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295085913 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066712

Albedo feedback enhanced by smoother Arctic sea ice

2015· article· en· W2295085913 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack Landy, Jens K. Ehn, David G. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsArcticNet
KeywordsSea iceMelt pondArctic ice packSea ice thicknessIce-albedo feedbackAlbedo (alchemy)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceArcticAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerSea ice concentrationAntarctic sea iceGeologyArctic sea ice declineCryosphereDrift iceAtmospheric sciencesOceanographySatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ICESat operational period 2003–2008 coincided with a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice—linked to prolonged melt season duration and enhanced melt pond coverage. Although melt ponds evolve in stages, sea ice with smoother surface topography typically allows the pond water to spread over a wider area, reducing the ice‐albedo and accelerating further melt. Here we develop this theory into a quantitative relationship between premelt sea ice surface roughness and summer melt pond coverage. Our method, applied to ICESat observations of the end‐of‐winter sea ice roughness, can account for 85% of the variance in advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) observations of the summer ice‐albedo. An Arctic‐wide reduction in sea ice roughness from 2003 to 2008 explains a drop in ice‐albedo that resulted in a 16% increase in solar heat input to the sea ice cover, which represents ten times the heat input contributed by earlier melt onset timing over the same period.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207