MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995446822 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2019.1694859

Sensitivity of Ice Drift to Form Drag and Ice Strength Parameterization in a Coupled Ice–Ocean Model

2019· article· en· W2995446822 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kamel Chikhar, Jean‐François Lemieux, Frédéric Dupont, François Roy, G. C. Moore Smith, Stephen Howell, Rodrigue Beaini

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGDG EnvironnementEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceDragArctic ice packDrift iceGeologySea ice thicknessArcticBuoySea ice concentrationClimatologyOceanographyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pan-Arctic sea-ice–ocean prediction system is assessed in terms of its ability to predict sea-ice velocity. This system is based on the Regional Ice Ocean Prediction System running operationally at the Canadian Centre for Meteorological and Environmental Prediction. A form drag parameterization is implemented in the system to allow spatially and temporally varying neutral drag coefficients depending on the sea-ice morphological characteristics. Simulated ice velocity is assessed using data from the International Arctic Buoy Programme, as well as ice motion derived from Environment and Climate Change Canada's synthetic aperture radar automated ice-tracking system. Results indicate that introducing the form drag parameterization systematically increases the sea-ice velocity and exacerbates a positive bias in summer already present in the previous version in which constant neutral drag coefficients were used. The ice strength parameterization used in the model rheology is found to affect the simulated ice drift significantly. Introducing modifications to the ice strength formulation and the empirical parameters helped alleviate the ice velocity bias.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207