MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607326664 · doi:10.5194/essd-9-589-2017

Multibeam bathymetry and CTD measurements in two fjord systems in southeastern Greenland

2017· article· en· W2607326664 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian K. Kjeldsen, Reimer Wilhelm Weinrebe, Jørgen Bendtsen, Anders Anker Bjørk, Kurt H. Kjær

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersKongelige Danske Videnskabernes SelskabDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondGEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel
KeywordsCTDBathymetryFjordOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We present bathymetry and hydrological observations collected in the summer of 2014 from two fjord systems in southeastern Greenland with a multibeam sonar system. Our results provide a detailed bathymetric map of the fjord complex around the island of Skjoldungen in Skjoldungen Fjord and the outer part of Timmiarmiut Fjord and show far greater depths compared to the International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean. The hydrography collected shows different properties in the fjords with the bottom water masses below 240 m in Timmiarmiut Fjord being 1–2 °C warmer than in the two fjords around Skjoldungen, but data also illustrate the influence of sills on the exchange of deeper water masses within fjords. Moreover, evidence of subglacial discharge in Timmiarmiut Fjord, which is consistent with satellite observations of ice mélange set into motion, adds to our increasing understanding of the distribution of subglacial meltwater. Data are available through the PANGAEA website at https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.860627.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth system science dataSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207