Theoretical estimates of light transmittance at the MOSAiC Central Observatory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light transmission through a sea ice cover has strong implications for the heat content of the upper ocean, the magnitude of bottom and lateral ice melt, and primary productivity in the ocean. Light transmittance in the vicinity of the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) Central Observatory was estimated by driving a two-stream radiative transfer model with physical property observations. Data include point and transect observations of snow depth, surface scattering layer thickness, ice thickness, and pond depth. The temporal evolution of light transmittance at specific sites and the spatial variability along transect lines were computed. Ponds transmitted 4–6 times as much solar energy per unit area as bare ice. On July 25, ponds covered about 18% of the area and contributed roughly 50% of the sunlight transmitted through the ice cover. Approximating the transmittance along a transect line using average values for the physical properties will always result in lower light transmittance than finding the average light transmittance using the full distribution of points. Transmitted solar energy calculated using the standard five ice thickness categories and three surface types used in the Los Alamos sea ice model CICE, the sea ice component of many weather and climate models, was only about 1 W m−2 less than using all the points along the transect. This minor difference suggests that the important processes and resulting feedbacks relating to solar transmittance can be represented in models that use five or more categories of ice thickness distributions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".