MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412766101 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-3527

Characteristics of ocean mesoscale eddies in the Canadian Basin from a high resolution pan-Arctic model

2025· preprint· en· W4412766101 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Noémie Planat, Carolina O. Dufour, Camille Lique, Jan Klaus Rieck, Claude Talandier, Bruno Tremblay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangèresMinistère de l'Europe et des Affaires ÉtrangèresISblueAgence Nationale de la RechercheCanada Research ChairsGrand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
KeywordsMesoscale meteorologyEddyThe arcticOceanographyArcticClimatologyGeologyStructural basinResolution (logic)GeographyMeteorologyGeomorphologyTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Mesoscale eddies are ubiquitous in the Arctic Ocean and are expected to become more numerous and energetic as sea ice continues to decline. Yet, the spatio-temporal characteristics of these eddies are poorly documented. Here, we apply an eddy detection and tracking method to investigate mesoscale eddies in the Canadian Basin over the period 1995–2020 from the output of a high resolution (1/12°) regional model of the Arctic - North Atlantic. Over that period, about 6,250 eddies are detected per year and per depth level and are distributed about equally between cyclones and anticyclones. On average, these eddies last 10 days, travel 11 km and have a radius of 12.1 km. These statistics hide strong regional and temporal disparities within the eddy population studied. In the top 85 m, the seasonal, decadal and interannual variability in the number of eddies and in their mean characteristics follow that of the sea ice cover. In contrast, below the upper pycnocline, the eddy number and properties show a weakened seasonality. At all depths, eddy characteristics and generation rate show a strong asymmetry between the slope and the centre of the Canadian Basin. The upper 85 m show an increase in the number of eddies generated along the slope, while a net diminution of the number of eddies generated is visible within the pycnocline layer along the slope presumably due to the stabilizing effect of the slope. An increased number of eddies are generated in the vicinity of the cyclonic boundary current in the AW layer. The vast majority of eddies have no temperature signature with respect to their environment, although a significant portion of long-lived eddies, located along the Chukchi shelf break, have a non-negligible temperature anomaly and penetrate into the Beaufort Gyre, thus suggesting a mechanism for the penetration of heat into the gyre. The number of eddies generated within the upper 85 m increases by 34 % over the 25 year of simulation, with the largest increase occurring in the open ocean and marginal ice zone. The number of eddies between the upper and lower pycnoclines increases by 45 %, with a strong year-long increase in 2008, presumably in response to the Beaufort Gyre spin-up in 2007–2008. The number of eddies in the Atlantic Waters (AW) layer shows an overall increase of 41 % with little interannual variability. Finally, the analysis shows that the dominance of anticyclonic eddies within the Beaufort Gyre reported from measurements with Ice Tethered Profilers is partly due to a spatial sampling bias. This model-based eddy census can thus help interpret some of the discrepancies found between observational studies by providing a consistent spatio-temporal characterization of mesoscale eddies in the Canadian basin.

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)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→