MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nuclear Reprocessing Tracers Illuminate Flow Features and Connectivity Between the Arctic and Subpolar North Atlantic Oceans

2022· review· en· W4294543659 on OpenAlexaff
Núria Casacuberta, J. N. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Marine Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsThermohaline circulationOceanographyNorth Atlantic Deep WaterArcticOcean currentWater massEnvironmental scienceThe arcticLead (geology)GeotracesTRACERClimatologyGeologySeawaterPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Releases of anthropogenic radionuclides from European nuclear fuel reprocessing plants enter the surface circulation of the high-latitude North Atlantic and are transported northward into the Arctic Ocean and southward from the Nordic Seas into the deep North Atlantic, thereby providing tracers of water circulation, mixing, ventilation, and deep-water formation. Early tracer studies focused on 137 Cs, which revealed some of the first significant insights into the Arctic Ocean circulation, while more recent work has benefited from advances in accelerator mass spectrometry to enable the measurement of the conservative, long-lived radionuclide tracers 129 I and 236 U. The latest studies of these tracers, supported by simulations using the North Atlantic–Arctic Ocean–Sea Ice Model (NAOSIM) and enhanced by the use of transit time distributions to more precisely accommodate mixing, have provided a rich inventory of transport data for circulation in the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans that are of great importance to global thermohaline circulation and climate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Marine ScienceSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207