MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807215851 · doi:10.1029/2017jc013622

Floe Size Effect on Wave‐Ice Interactions: Possible Effects, Implementation in Wave Model, and Evaluation

2018· article· en· W2807215851 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Boutin, Fabrice Ardhuin, Dany Dumont, Caroline Sévigny, Fanny Girard‐Ardhuin, Mickaël Accensi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchDirection Générale de l’ArmementAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsDissipationAttenuationSea iceMechanicsScatteringGeologyNonlinear systemGeophysicsPhysicsOpticsClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wind waves may play an important role in the evolution of sea ice. That role is largely determined by how fast the ice layer dissipates the wave energy. The transition from a continuous layer of ice to a series of broken floes is expected to have a strong impact on the several attenuation processes. Here we explore the possible effects of basal friction, scattering, and dissipation within the ice layer. The ice is treated as a single layer that can be fractured in many floes. Dissipation associated with ice flexure is evaluated using an anelastic linear dissipation and a cubic inelastic viscous dissipation. Tests aiming to reproduce a Marginal Ice Zone are used to discuss the effects of each process separately. Attenuation is exponential for friction and scattering. Scattering produces an increase in the wave height near the ice edge and broadens the wave directional spectrum, especially for short‐period waves. The nonlinear inelastic dissipation is larger for larger wave heights as long as the ice is not broken. These effects are combined in a realistic simulation of an ice break‐up event observed south of Svalbard in 2010. The recorded rapid shift from a strong attenuation to little attenuation when the ice is broken is only reproduced when using a nonlinear dissipation that vanishes when the ice is broken. A preliminary pan‐Arctic test of these different parameterizations suggests that inelastic dissipation alone is not enough and requires its combination with basal friction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations83
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207