MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048849361

An examination of double-diffusive processes in a mesoscale eddy in the Arctic Ocean

2016· book-chapter· en· W3048849361 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yana Bebieva, Mary‐Louise Timmermans

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Geophysical Union eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy diffusionMesoscale meteorologyGeostrophic windGeologyBuoyancyTemperature salinity diagramsTurbulenceEddy covarianceClimatologyOceanographyMechanicsPhysicsSalinity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperature and salinity measurements of an Atlantic Water mesoscale eddy in the Arctic Ocean's Canada Basin are analyzed to understand the effects of velocity shear on a range of double-diffusive processes. Double-diffusive structures in and around the eddy are examined through the transition from low shear (outside the eddy and within its solid body core) to high geostrophic shear zones at the eddy flanks. The geostrophic Richardson number takes large values where a double-diffusive staircase is observed and lowest values at the eddy flanks where geostrophic velocity is largest and a well-formed staircase is not present. A Thorpe scale analysis is used to estimate turbulent diffusivities in the flank regions. Double-diffusive and turbulent heat, salt, and buoyancy fluxes from the eddy are computed, and used to infer that the eddy decays on time scales of around 4–9 years. Fluxes highlight that Atlantic Water heat within the eddy can be fluxed downward into deeper water layers by means of both double-diffusive and turbulent mixing. Estimated lateral variations in vertical fluxes across the eddy allow for speculation that double diffusion speeds up the eddy decay, having important implications for the transfer of Atlantic Water heat in the Arctic Ocean.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Geophysical Union eBooksSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207