MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368360783 · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02160-9

A dataset of direct observations of sea ice drift and waves in ice

2023· article· en· W4368360783 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Rabault, Malte Müller, Joey Voermans, Dmitry Brazhnikov, Ian Turnbull, Aleksey Marchenko, Martin Biuw, Takehiko Nose, Takuji Waseda, A. Malin Johansson, Øyvind Breivik, Graig Sutherland, Lars Robert Hole, Mark A. Johnson, Atle Jensen, Olav Gundersen, Yngve Kristoffersen, Alexander V. Babanin, Paulina Tedesco, Kai H. Christensen, Martin Kristiansen, Gaute Hope, Tsubasa Kodaira, Victor de Aguiar, Catherine Taelman, Cornelius P. Quigley, Kirill Filchuk, Andrew R. Mahoney

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
FundersNorges ForskningsrådU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsSea iceDrift iceSea ice thicknessGeologyArctic ice packAntarctic sea iceSea ice concentrationCryosphereLead (geology)BreakupSea ice growth processesClimatologyOceanographyPhysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variability in sea ice conditions, combined with strong couplings to the atmosphere and the ocean, lead to a broad range of complex sea ice dynamics. More in-situ measurements are needed to better identify the phenomena and mechanisms that govern sea ice growth, drift, and breakup. To this end, we have gathered a dataset of in-situ observations of sea ice drift and waves in ice. A total of 15 deployments were performed over a period of 5 years in both the Arctic and Antarctic, involving 72 instruments. These provide both GPS drift tracks, and measurements of waves in ice. The data can, in turn, be used for tuning sea ice drift models, investigating waves damping by sea ice, and helping calibrate other sea ice measurement techniques, such as satellite based 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207