MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243967359 · doi:10.5194/gstm2020-45

Arctic Ocean bottom pressure variations from 2002 to 2020: merging GRACE with GRACE-FO

2020· preprint· en· W4243967359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cecilia Peralta‐Ferriz, James Morison, J. A. Bonin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticStructural basinOceanographyClimatologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ocean bottom pressure (OBP) from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) revealed Arctic Ocean circulation patterns and variability that were previously unknown (Morison et al., 2007; Morison et al., 2012; Peralta-Ferriz et al., 2014). OBP measurements from the GRACE Follow-On mission (GRACE-FO) are therefore increasingly important for monitoring Arctic Ocean variability, and critical for understanding and predicting the fate of the rapidly changing Arctic environment. In this work we use GRACE data from 2002 to 2017 jointly with a 10-year record of in situ OBP at the North Pole (2005-2015) complemented with in situ OBP in the Canada Basin (2015-2018), and wind reanalysis products, to create a proxy representation of the OBP anomalies that explains the largest possible fraction of the observed OBP variability in the Arctic Ocean and the Nordic Seas. We do this by performing a linear regression analysis, combined with maximum covariance analysis (MCA) – a technique that was tested prior to the decommission of GRACE and the launch of GRACE-FO (Peralta-Ferriz et al., 2016). Here, the first predictor time series is the in situ OBP record at the North Pole and Canada Basin; the second predictor time series is the expansion coefficients time series of the leading mode of MCA between the GRACE OBP coupled with the winds. We use this proxy OBP to merge GRACE with the first 2 years of available GRACE-FO OBP. We compare our merged OBP field with OBP output from the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). Preliminary results suggest a good agreement between the proxy and predicted OBP fields and both GRACE and GRACE-FO data, especially in the central Arctic, but also in the Nordic Seas. The OBP variations from the merged GRACE and GRACE-FO and from PIOMAS will be also explored. References: Morison, J. H., J. Wahr, R. Kwok and C. Peralta-Ferriz (2007), Recent trends in Arctic Ocean mass distribution revealed by GRACE, Res. Lett.,34, L07602, doi:10.1029/2006GL029016. Morison, J., R. Kwok, C. Peralta-Ferriz, M. Alkire, I. Rigor, R. Andersen and M. Steele (2012), Changing Arctic Ocean freshwater pathways. Nature, 481, 66-7 Peralta-Ferriz, C., J. H. Morison, J. M. Wallace, J. Bonin and J. Zhang (2014), Arctic Ocean circulation patterns revealed by GRACE, of Climate, 27:1445–1468 doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00013.1. Peralta-Ferriz, C., J. H. Morison and J. M. Wallace(2016), Proxy representation of Arctic ocean bottom pressure variability: Bridging gaps in GRACE observations, Res. Lett., 43, 9183–9191, doi:10.1002/2016GL070137

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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→