MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041623702 · doi:10.5194/angeo-29-1939-2011

Characteristics of Arctic tides at CANDAC-PEARL (80° N, 86° W) and Svalbard (78° N, 16° E) for 2006–2009: radar observations and comparisons with the model CMAM-DAS

2011· article· en· W3041623702 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. H. Manson, C. E. Meek, Xiaoyong Xu, T. Asô, J. R. Drummond, Christopher Hall, W. K. Hocking, Masaki Tsutsumi, W. E. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales Geophysicae · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersEurostarsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsArcticGeologyOceanographyClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesThe arcticMiddle latitudesPolar nightEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Operation of a Meteor Radar (MWR) at Eureka, Ellesmere Island (80° N, 86° W) began in February 2006: this is the location of the Polar Environmental and Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL), operated by the "Canadian Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Change" (CANDAC). The first 36 months of tidal wind data (82–97 km) are here combined with contemporaneous tides from the Meteor Radar (MWR) at Adventdalen, Svalbard (78° N, 16° E), to provide the first significant evidence for interannual variability (IAV) of the High Arctic's diurnal and semidiurnal migrating (MT) and non-migrating tides (NMT). The three-year monthly means for both diurnal (DT) and semi-diurnal (SDT) winds demonstrate significantly different amplitudes and phases at Eureka and Svalbard. Typically the summer-maximizing DT is much larger (~24 m s−1 at 97 km) at Eureka, while the Svalbard tide (5–24 m s−1 at 97 km)) is almost linear (north-south) rather than circular. Interannual variations are smallest in the summer and autumn months. The High Arctic SDT has maxima centred on August/September, followed in size by the winter features; and is much larger at Svalbard (24 m s−1 at 97 km, versus 14–18 m s−1 in central Canada). Depending on the location, the IAV are largest in spring/winter (Eureka) and summer/autumn (Svalbard). Fitting of wave-numbers for the migrating and non-migrating tides (MT, NMT) determines dominant tides for each month and height. Existence of NMT is consistent with nonlinear interactions between migrating tides and (quasi) stationary planetary wave (SPW) S=1 (SPW1). For the diurnal oscillation, NMT s=0 for the east-west (EW) wind component dominates (largest tide) in the late autumn and winter (November–February); and s=+2 is frequently seen in the north-south (NS) wind component for the same months. The semi-diurnal oscillation's NMT s=+1 dominates from March to June/July. There are patches of s=+3 and +1, in the late fall-winter. These wave numbers are also consistent with SPW1-MT interactions. Comparisons for 2007 of the observed DT and SDT at 78–80° N, with those within the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model Data Assimilation System CMAM-DAS, are a major feature of this paper. The diurnal tides for the two locations have important similarities as observed and modeled, with seasonal maxima in the mesosphere from April to October, and similar phases with long/evanescent wavelengths. However, differences are also significant: observed Eureka amplitudes are generally larger than the model; and at Svalbard the modeled tide is classically circular, rather than anomalous. For the semi-diurnal tide, the amplitudes and phases differ markedly between Eureka and Svalbard for both MWR-radar data and CMAM-DAS data. The seasonal variations from observed and modeled archives also differ at each location. Tidal NMT-amplitudes and wave-numbers for the model differ substantially from observations.

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales GeophysicaeSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207