MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382600934 · doi:10.1038/s43247-023-00899-y

Paleobathymetric reconstructions of the SW Barents Seaway and their implications for Atlantic–Arctic ocean circulation

2023· article· en· W4382600934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amando Lasabuda, Alfred Hanssen, Jan Sverre Laberg, Jan Inge Faleide, Henry Patton, Mansour M. Abdelmalak, Tom Arne Rydningen, B. Kjølhamar

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Australian Research CouncilRoyal Holloway, University of LondonUniversitetet i Tromsø
KeywordsGeologySubaerialOceanographyQuaternaryArcticStructural basinPaleontologyOcean currentThermohaline circulationSubsidenceCanada BasinOceanic basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Unravelling past, large-scale ocean circulation patterns is crucial for deciphering the long-term global paleoclimate. Here we apply numerical modelling to reconstruct the detailed paleobathymetry-topography of the southwestern inlet of the Barents Seaway that presently connects the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. Subaerial topography was likely enough to block Atlantic Water from entering the Barents Seaway in the earliest Eocene (c. 55 Ma). The water may have entered in the middle Eocene (c. 47 Ma) as observed from major basin subsidence, but paleotopographic highs to the east may have hindered connections between the two oceans. From the Oligocene (c. 33 Ma) until the onset of the Quaternary (c. 2.7 Ma), basin shallowing and regional shelf uplift blocked Atlantic Water from entering the Barents Seaway. Our results imply that the Fram Strait remained the sole gateway for Atlantic Water into the Arctic Ocean since its opening in the Miocene until the Quaternary.

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)0.000
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207