<i>Titanic's</i> mirage, part 1: The enigma of the Arctic High and a cold‐water tongue of the Labrador Current
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract More than a century after the sinking of the Titanic, scientists and historians are still trying to understand what happened on that fateful night. New hypotheses, including the one that declares a Fata Morgana type mirage was involved in both the collision with the iceberg and the failed communications between the Titanic and the Californian, are being introduced on a regular basis. This article is the first in a four‐part series that examines the mirage theory of the Titanic disaster. In this part, a few ways in which a temperature inversion (which is required for a mirage to form) could have developed at the site of the disaster at the time of the collision and subsequent sinking are explored. A high‐pressure cell, an icy river of melt‐water and the Gulf Stream are all examined as factors that could have contributed to the formation of an inversion. It is demonstrated that the development of a steep temperature inversion at the wreck site, though rather unlikely, cannot be excluded completely.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".