MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129789225 · doi:10.1002/qj.4002

Arctic ocean–sea ice reanalysis for the period 2007–2016 using the adjoint method

2021· article· en· W3129789225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guokun Lyu, Armin Koehl, Nuno Serra, Detlef Stammer, Jiping Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceClimatologyHydrographyArctic ice packArctic sea ice declineEnvironmental scienceSea ice concentrationOceanographyCryosphereArcticData assimilationSea ice thicknessGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present an Arctic ocean–sea ice reanalysis covering the period 2007–2016 based on the adjoint approach of the Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO) consortium. The spatiotemporal variation of Arctic sea surface temperature (SST), sea ice concentration (SIC), and sea ice thickness (SIT) is substantially improved after the assimilation of ocean and sea ice observations. By assimilating additional World Ocean Atlas 2018 (WOA18) hydrographic data, the freshwater content of the Canadian Basin becomes closer to the observations and translates into changes of the ocean circulation and of transports through the Fram and Davis straits. This new reanalysis compares well with previous filter‐based (TOPAZ4) and nudging‐based (PIOMAS) reanalyses regarding SIC and SST. Benefiting from using the adjoint of the sea ice model, our reanalysis is superior to the ECCOv4r4 product considering sea ice parameters. However, the mean state and variability of the freshwater content and the transport properties of our reanalysis remain different from TOPAZ4 and ECCOv4r4, likely because of a lack of hydrographic 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207