The Deep Western Boundary Current in the Labrador Sea From Observations and a High‐Resolution Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Long‐term observations from a 17 year long mooring array at the exit of the Labrador Sea at 53°N are compared to the output of a high‐resolution model (VIKING20). Both are analyzed to define robust integral properties on basin and regional scale, which can be determined and evaluated equally well. While both, the observations and the model, show a narrow DWBC cyclonically engulfing the Labrador Sea, the model's boundary current system is more barotropic than in the observations and spectral analysis indicates stronger monthly to interannual transport variability. Compared to the model, the observations show a stronger density gradient, hence a stronger baroclinicity, from center to boundary. Despite this, the observed temporal evolution of the temperature in the central Labrador Sea is reproduced. The model results yield a mean export of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) (33.0 ± 5.7 Sv), which is comparable to the observed transport (31.2 ± 5.5 Sv) at 53°N. The results also include a comparable spatial pattern and March mixed layer depth in the central Labrador Sea (maximum depth ∼2,000 m). During periods containing enhanced deep convection (1990s) our analyses show increased correlation between LSW and LNADW model transport at 53°N. Our results indicate that the transport variability in LSW and LNADW at 53°N is a result of a complex modulation of wind stress and buoyancy forcing on regional and basin wide scale.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".