MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967121897 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab3b8d

Physical length scales of wind-blown snow redistribution and accumulation on relatively smooth Arctic first-year sea ice

2019· article· en· W2967121897 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Woosok Moon, Vishnu Nandan, Randall K. Scharien, Jeremy Wilkinson, John Yackel, A. P. Barrett, Isobel R. Lawrence, Rebecca A. Segal, Julienne Strœve, Mallik Mahmud, Patrick J. Duke, Brent Else

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
FundersFP7 EnvironmentCanadian Space AgencyNatural Environment Research CouncilSeventh Framework ProgrammeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionSight Research UKPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsSnowSea iceArcticArctic ice packClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyAtmospheric sciencesBayPhysical geographyOceanographyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Snow thickness measurements over relatively smooth Arctic first-year sea ice, obtained near Cambridge Bay in the Canadian Arctic (2014, 2016 and 2017) and near Elson Lagoon in the Alaskan Arctic (2003 and 2006), are analyzed to quantify physical length-scales and their relevant scaling behaviors. We use the multi-fractal temporally weighted detrended fluctuation analysis method to detect two major physical length-scales from the two independent study locations. Our results suggest that physical processes underlying the formation of snow dunes are consistent and that the wind is the main process shaping the snow thickness variability and redistribution. One scale, around 10 m, appears to be related to the formation of the snow ‘dunes’, while the other scale, between 30 and 100 m, is likely associated with the various interactions of the snow dunes such as merging, calving and lateral linking. Results imply that snow on level sea ice shows self-organized characteristics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207