MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408307428 · doi:10.1029/2024ms004276

Sensitivity to Sea Ice Thickness Parameters in a Coupled Ice‐Ocean Data Assimilation System

2025· article· en· W4408307428 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Nab, Davi Mignac, Jack Landy, Matthew Martin, Julienne Strœve, Michel Tsamados

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersEuropean Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNatural Environment Research CouncilMet OfficeEuropean Space AgencyNorges ForskningsrådSight Research UK
KeywordsData assimilationSea iceSensitivity (control systems)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceSea ice thicknessAssimilation (phonology)GeologySea ice concentrationOceanographyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyRemote sensingCryosphereGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sea ice thickness (SIT) estimates derived from CryoSat‐2 radar freeboard measurements are assimilated into the Met Office's Forecast Ocean Assimilation Model. We test the sensitivity of winter simulations to the snow depth, radar freeboard product and assumed radar penetration through the snowpack in the freeboard‐to‐thickness conversion. We find that modifying the snow depth has the biggest impact on the modeled SIT, changing it by up to 0.88 m (48%), compared to 0.65 m (33%) when modifying the assumed radar penetration through the snowpack and 0.55 m (30%) when modifying the freeboard product. We find a doubling in the thermodynamic volume change over the winter season when assimilating SIT data, with the largest changes seen in the congelation ice growth. Next, we determine that the method used to calculate the observation uncertainties of the assimilated data products can change the mean daily model SIT by up to 36%. Compared to measurements collected at upward‐looking sonar moorings and during the Operation IceBridge campaign, we find an improvement in the SIT simulations' variability representation when assuming partial radar penetration through the snowpack and when improving the method used to calculate the CryoSat‐2 observation uncertainties. This paper highlights a concern for future SIT data assimilation and forecasting, with the chosen parameterization of the freeboard‐to‐thickness conversion having a substantial impact on model results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth SystemsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207