Impact of the ice strength formulation on the performance of a sea ice thickness distribution model in the <scp>A</scp>rctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impact of a subgrid‐scale ice thickness distribution (ITD) and two standard ice strength formulations on simulated Arctic sea ice climate is investigated. To this end, different model configurations with and without an ITD were tuned by minimizing the weighted mean error between the simulated and observed sea ice concentration, thickness, and drift speed with an semiautomatic parameter optimization routine. The standard ITD and ice strength parameterization lead to larger errors when compared to the simple single‐category model with an ice strength parameterization based on the mean ice thickness. Interestingly, the simpler ice strength formulation, which depends linearly on the mean ice thickness, also reduces the model‐observation error when using an ITD. For the ice strength parameterization that makes use of the ITD, the effective ice strength depends strongly on the number of thickness categories, so that introducing more categories can lead to overall thicker ice that is more easily deformed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".