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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".