MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086613144 · doi:10.1029/2020gl089793

Reconciling the Relationship Between the AMOC and Labrador Sea in OSNAP Observations and Climate Models

2020· article· en· W3086613144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Menary, Laura Jackson, M. Susan Lozier

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeMet Office Academic Partnership
KeywordsOcean gyreClimatologyOceanographyForcing (mathematics)Climate modelGeologyThermohaline circulationGeneral Circulation ModelShutdown of thermohaline circulationOcean currentClimate changeNorth Atlantic Deep Water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) is a key driver of climate variability. Our understanding, based largely on climate models, is that the Labrador Sea has an important role in shaping the evolution of the AMOC. However, a recent high‐profile observational campaign (Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic, OSNAP) has called into question the importance of the Labrador Sea, and hence the credibility of the AMOC representation in climate models. Here, we attempt to reconcile these viewpoints by making the first direct comparison between OSNAP and a coupled climate model. The model compares well to the observations, demonstrating a more prominent role for overturning in the eastern than western subpolar gyre. Density anomalies generated by surface forcing in the Irminger Sea propagate into the Labrador Sea, where they dominate the density variability. Thus, the Labrador Sea may not be the origin of AMOC variability despite correlations with densities there.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations85
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207