Investigating the remote-forcing hypothesis for upwelling in the Gulf of Guinea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upwelling events in the Gulf of Guinea (GoG) impact climate and fisheries along the West African coastline.It has long been argued that the classical theory of coastal upwelling due to winds and Ekman transport is not the primary cause of the GoG upwelling.Rather, upwelling in the region has been hypothesized to be largely associated with Kelvin waves propagating eastward from the Brazilian coast along the equator.In this paper we test this hypothesis, using satellite observational data and output from the state-of-the-art Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO) model.Kelvin waves are extracted from the satellite data and compared with those from the model.The phase speed of the Kelvin waves from satellite observations and model data is about 1.8 m/s, consistent with previous studies using only satellite observations.The correlations between the Kelvin waves (their displacements) from satellite observations and ECCO appear to increase in recent years, indicating model improvement.We also find high lagged correlation between the wind stress in the Brazilian region versus SST anomalies in the GoG region, from both satellite observations and model output, with a lag of about one month, thereby implicating the remote-forcing hypothesis for the GoG upwelling.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".