MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923509888 · doi:10.1029/2018gl081837

Discrepancy in the Identification of the Atlantic/Pacific Front in the Central Arctic Ocean: NO Versus Nutrient Relationships

2019· article· en· W2923509888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew B. Alkire, Robert Rember, Igor V. Polyakov

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOceanographyHaloclineGeologyRidgeArcticFront (military)Structural basinThermohaline circulationCircumpolar deep waterWater massThe arcticClimatologyNorth Atlantic Deep WaterSalinityPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fronts in the NO parameter, a semiconservative tracer combining nitrate and dissolved oxygen, and dynamic height were observed in the central East Siberian Sea that distinguished Atlantic and Pacific contributions to the upper halocline of the Amerasian Basin during the summer of 2015. The NO front was aligned with the Transpolar Drift, and its position over the Mendeleyev Ridge indicates that Pacific waters were generally restricted to the Canada Basin and did not spread to the central Arctic. This interpretation lies in contrast to the distribution of Pacific water fractions, calculated using established relationships between nitrate and phosphate, and indicates that traditional tracers used to quantify Pacific water contributions to the Arctic Ocean are no longer accurate.

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)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207