MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887985879 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.19271729.v1

Temperature and salinity in the central Labrador Sea during the 1990s and in the context of the longer-term change

2003· report· en· W6887985879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalinityContext (archaeology)Water massNorth Atlantic Deep WaterTemperature salinity diagramsSeawaterSea surface temperaturePeriod (music)Saline water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early years of the 1990s, in the Labrador Sea winters were exceptionally severe, while in the later years winters were relatively mild. High heat losses during the severe winters produced mixed layers increasing in depth to a maximum of 2300 m. This pool of convectively mixed water, Labrador Sea Water (LSW), is a well-recognized intermediate water mass in the North Atlantic Ocean. In the latter half of the decade, mixed layer depths, at less than 1500 m, were too shallow to maintain the recently created LSW. It slowly drained away from the Labrador Sea to other regions of the North Atlantic Ocean. This loss was balanced by a flow of warmer more saline water from the boundary currents. Changes in temperature and salinity associated with the build-up and decline of LSW over the decade are presented. Property variations in the Northeast Atlantic Deep Water and Denmark Strait Overflow Water lying below the LSW are also discussed.Article from Marine Science Symposia Vol. 219 - "Hydrobiological variability in the ICES Area, 1990-1999", symposium held in Edinburgh, 8-10 August 2001. To access the remaining articles please click on the keyword "MSS Vol. 219".

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207