MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322002035 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-11576

Assessing the variability of Irminger Water at AR7W between 1993 and 2022 using time-dependent property thresholds

2023· preprint· en· W4322002035 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Niklas Wiegand, Dagmar Kieke, Paul G. Myers, Igor Yashayaev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrographyCurrent (fluid)Water massEnvironmental scienceVolume (thermodynamics)ClimatologySalinityTemperature salinity diagramsGeologyOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irminger Water (IW) is a prominent water mass in the subpolar North Atlantic (SPNA). It is warm and saline and originates from the North Atlantic Current and the Irminger Current. The water mass delivers anomalously large amounts of heat and salt to the Labrador Sea. Like any other water mass, IW is subject to temporal and spatial variability, which needs to be adequately identified and tracked.To separate IW from ambient waters, previous studies identified IW at different times using static thresholds of salinity, temperature, and density (i.e., constant over time within the individual studies). However, given the tremendous variability in the region, such static definitions often do not detect IW sufficiently since these definitions do not account for shifts in the large-scale hydrographic state of the SPNA. To address this issue, this study aims to identify non-static thresholds (i.e., incorporating temporal variability) to analyze IW variability. We refer to the method of identifying IW based on non-static thresholds as the phenomenological approach. To do so, we utilize the observation-based data set ARMOR3D between 1993 and 2022. This new approach allows us to compare estimates of IW properties and volume transports to respective estimates obtained from the static approach.In the case of the static approach being applied to the AR7W section in the eastern part of the Labrador Sea as a test region, the water column was anomalously saline in years of high IW volume transport. Hence, the static approach identified more IW and thus overestimated its volume transport. In contrast, the water column was anomalously fresh in years when the static approach reveals a low IW volume transport. Hence, applying the static approach, less IW is identified, and thus its volume transport is underestimated. In contrast, the phenomenological approach reveals less pronounced decadal variability of the IW volume transport.Applying a static IW definition will likely create stronger gradients between IW and ambient water masses when both are fresher. In turn, these gradients may impose or modulate unrealistic changes in the IW volume transport simply because the actual boundary of IW does not coincide with a certain isohaline or isotherm. Any correlated change or shift in IW properties and, for example, Labrador Sea Water will relocate the IW boundary causing the transport to change. The phenomenological approach introduced in our study resolves this issue.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→