Dense water formation in the north‐western Mediterranean area during HyMeX‐SOP2 in 1/36° ocean simulations: Sensitivity to initial conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The north‐western Mediterranean Sea is a key location where intense air‐sea exchanges occur in autumn and winter. The succession of strong mistral and tramontane situations, leading to significant evaporation and ocean heat loss, is well known as the controlling factor in the dense water formation (DWF) with deep convection episodes. During HyMeX‐SOP2 (1 February to 15 March 2013), several platforms sampled the area in order to document DWF and air‐sea exchanges. This study investigates the ability of the NEMO‐WMED36 ocean model (1/36°‐resolution), driven in surface by the hourly air‐sea fluxes from the AROME‐WMED forecasts (2.5 km resolution), to represent DWF during HyMeX‐SOP2 and focuses on the sensitivity to initial conditions. After a short evaluation of the atmospheric forcing, the high‐resolution oceanic simulations using three different data sets as initial and boundary conditions are compared to observations collected during the field campaign. It evidences that using regional model outputs may lead to unrealistic thermohaline characteristics for the intermediate and deep waters, which degrade the simulated new dense water formed. Using ocean analyses built from observations, permits to obtain more realistic characteristics of the Western Mediterranean dense water. However, a low stratification favors an overestimation of the convective area and of the DWF rate. The DWF chronology is also impacted. Nevertheless, in every run, SOP2 is characterized by the production of water denser than 29.11 kg m −3 with a peak during the strong mistral event of 23–25 February followed by a period of restratification, before a last event of bottom convection on 13–15 March.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".