MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404361428 · doi:10.1029/2024gl110348

Influence of Foehn‐Like Winds on Near‐Surface Temperature at Jang Bogo Station, Terra Nova Bay, East Antarctica

2024· article· en· W4404361428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. H. Ahn, Won‐Seok Seo, Hataek Kwon, M. J. Lee, Seong‐Joong Kim, Bang‐Yong Lee, Sang‐Jong Park, T. Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Oceans and FisheriesKorea Polar Research InstituteNational Research Foundation
KeywordsBayNova (rocket)GeologyOceanographyClimatologyNova scotiaMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The coast of Terra Nova Bay (TNB) is known as one of the intense katabatic wind confluence zones in Antarctica. Strong westerly winds with topography‐specific foehn effects (foehn‐like winds, FLWs) could have influenced surface temperatures in this area downwind of the Transantarctic Mountains, yet their impact remains unstudied. Jang Bogo Station (JBS) in TNB has weak winds year‐round, with occasional strong winds causing significant winter temperature increases. This study aims to investigate the FLWs and their recent variability in occurrence at JBS in terms of surface temperature variability. During the strong wind events, the surface warms due to foehn effects such as adiabatic heating and vertical mixing. FLWs occur approximately 16% (10%) of the time in winter (annually). FLWs are caused by cyclones in the eastern Ross Sea. Meteorological records for 2015–2022 revealed an increased FLW frequency, particularly in winter, which has increased temperatures in recent years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→