Impact of the Arctic oscillation from March on summertime sea ice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current understanding of the cold season Arctic oscillation (AO) impact on the summertime sea ice is revisited in this study by analyzing the role from each month. Earlier studies examined the prolonged AO impact using a smooth average over 1–2 seasons (e.g. December–March, December–April, March–May), ignoring large month-to-month AO variability. This study finds that the March AO is most influential on the summertime sea ice loss. First, the March AO is most highly negative-correlated with the AO in summer. Secondly, surface energy budget, sea level pressure, and low-tropospheric circulation exhibit that their time-lagged responses to the positive (negative) phase of the March AO grow with time, transitioning to the patterns associated with the negative (positive) phase of the AO that induces sea ice decrease (increase) in summer. Time evolution of the surface energy budget explains the growth of the sea ice concentration anomaly in summer, and a warming-to-cooling transition in October. The regional difference in sea ice anomaly distribution can be also explained by circulation and surface energy budget patterns. The sea ice concentration along the pan-Arctic including the Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort Sea decreases (increases) in summer in response to the positive (negative) phase of the March AO, while the sea ice to the northeast of Greenland increases (decreases). This sea ice response is better represented by the March AO than by the seasonally averaged winter AO, suggesting that the March AO can play more significant role. This study also finds that the sea ice decrease in response to the positive AO is distinctively smaller in the 20th century than in the 21st century, along with the opposite sea ice response over the Canada Basin due to circulation difference between the two periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".