MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Understanding eddy field in the Arctic Ocean from high-resolution satellite observations

2020· article· en· W3085517585 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Igor Kozlov, Anastasia V. Artamonova, Larisa Petrenko, Evgeny Plotnikov, Georgy E. Manucharyan, A. A. Kubryakov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddyGeologyOcean gyreOceanographyCanada BasinAnticycloneClimatologyArcticSea iceSatelliteMeteorologyGeographyTurbulencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic Ocean is a host to major ocean circulation systems, many of which generate eddies that can transport water masses and corresponding tracers over long distances from their formation sites. However, comprehensive observations of critical eddy characteristics are currently not available and are limited to spatially and temporally sparse in situ observations. Here we use multi-mission high‐resolution spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) measurements to detect eddies over open ocean and marginal ice zones (MIZ) of Fram Strait and Beaufort Gyre regions. We provide the first estimate of eddy properties, including their locations, size, vorticity sign and monthly distribution during summer period (from June to October). The results of historical Envisat ASAR observations for 2007 and 2011 are then compared to Sentinel-1 and ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 measurements acquired in 2016 and 2018, to infer the possible changes in the intensity and locations of eddy generation over the last decade. The most prominent feature of the obtained results is that cyclonic eddies strongly dominate over anticyclones. Eddies range in size between 0.5 and 100 km and are frequently found over the shelf and near continental slopes but also present in the deep basin. For MIZ eddies, the number of eddies clearly depends on sea ice concentration with more eddies detected at the ice edge and over low ice concentration regions. The obtained results clearly show that eddies are ubiquitous in the Arctic Ocean even in the presence of sea ice and emphasize the need for improved ocean observations and modeling at eddy scales. A special focus is also given to infer eddy dynamics over the Arctic marginal ice zones. The use of sequential Sentinel-1 SAR images enables to retrieve high-resolution velocity field over MIZ on a daily basis and observe eddy-driven MIZ dynamics down to submesoscales. The obtained eddy orbital velocities are in agreement with historical observations and may reach up to 0.5-0.7 m/s. We believe that this information is critical for better understanding of the key dynamical processes governing the MIZ state, as well as for improving and validation of sea ice and coupled ice-ocean models. The analysis of eddies in this work was supported by RFBR grant 18‐35‐20078. Processing and analysis of Sentinel‐1 and ALOS‐2 Palsar‐2 data were done within RSF grant 18‐77‐00082. Software development for data analysis in this work was made under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation contract 0555‐2019‐0001.

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)0.000
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 score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.119 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→