MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095144779 · doi:10.33265/polar.v39.3617

Unusual drift behaviour of multi-year sea ice in the Beaufort Sea during summer 2018

2020· article· en· W3095144779 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noriaki Kimura, Kazutaka Tateyama, Kazutoshi Sato, Richard Krishfield, Hajime Yamaguchi

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsNational Institute of Polar Research
KeywordsSea iceArctic ice packDrift iceAntarctic sea iceSea ice thicknessFast iceOceanographyGeologyClimatologyBeaufort scaleBeaufort seaCryosphereArcticWind speedIcebergEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In summer 2018, thick sea ice blocked the mouth of the Amundsen Gulf (AG), Canada, obstructing shipping through the North-west Passage. This study analysed multi-year ice motion to investigate the source of this thick ice and the reasons for its unusual movement. For this purpose, a daily multi-year ice distribution product was generated by ice tracking using gridded daily sea-ice velocities (2003–2018) derived from the AMSR-E and AMSR-2 data. From autumn 2017 to summer 2018, the area of multi-year ice extended westward to the Beaufort Sea and then migrated towards the AG mouth. The primary cause of the unusual ice cover was anomalous AG-ward wind in September 2018. It is known that multi-year ice has become increasingly moveable over the past decades, as indicated by the increasing wind factor (i.e., ratio of ice-drift speed and wind speed), but the unusual ice motion in the summer of 2018 cannot be explainable by the wind factor alone. Accurately, predicting monthly wind and monitoring old thick ice will reduce the risk posed by thick Arctic sea ice to shipping.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar ResearchSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207