MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410918073 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02360-8

Landfast ice in the Kara Sea stabilizes the Arctic halocline and may slow down Atlantification of the Eurasian Basin

2025· article· en· W4410918073 on OpenAlexaff
Yuqing Liu, Martin Lösch, Bruno Tremblay, Markus Janout

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsHaloclineGeologyOceanographyStructural basinSea iceThe arcticArcticPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Observations show an Atlantification of the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean, with deeper penetration, shoaling, and ventilation of Atlantic waters in the eastern Arctic and an associated weakening of the cold halocline layer. These processes have a profound impact on the sea ice cover above and potentially on the transition of the Arctic to a seasonal ice cover. Here we show, using a coupled ice-ocean model, that a proper simulation of the landfast ice cover in the relatively small but deeper peripheral Kara Sea has a disproportionately large influence on the halocline stability in the Eurasian Basin and beyond. Specifically, landfast ice in the Kara Sea reduces ice growth and therefore salt rejection into the surface ocean. This negative salinity anomaly is advected eastward with a coastal current along the continental shelf in the Makarov Basin and then out of the Arctic through Fram Strait by the Transpolar Drift Stream on timescales of less than ten years. Global Climate Models, however, do not yet include landfast ice parameterizations. Therefore, they are missing this key process affecting the halocline stability, Atlantification of the Makarov Basin, and potentially the timing of a seasonally ice-free Arctic.

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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