MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6928909726 · doi:10.4224/12326980

Decay of first-year sea ice

2001· report· en· W6928909726 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2001
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Wood Council
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsSea iceArctic ice packAntarctic sea iceSea ice thicknessMelt pondPancake iceSea ice growth processesBorehole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes analysis results of one season of measurements of decayed first year sea ice in the central Canadian Arctic. The study was conducted from 21 May to 19 July 2000. Mean air temperatures steadily increased from –15°C to a maximum of +7.5°C. The ice was 1.20 m thick on 21 May and had ablated to 0.83 m by 19 July. Ice ablation occurred at a rate of about 23 mm/day. The initial bulk ice salinity of 5.5 ‰ had decreased to less than 0.5 ‰ by 19 July. The upper and lower surfaces of the ice began to desalinate before the bulk layer of ice. The confined compressive strength of the ice was measured in 110 borehole jack tests. All strength profiles showed that the in situ ice strength decreased as the decay season progressed. Over the nine-week period, the average full-thickness in situ strength of the ice decreased from 12 MPa to 3 MPa. Most of the decrease in in situ ice strength resulted from changes in the physical properties of the ice. During the last three weeks of the study, the ice maintained a strength of 3 MPa whereas ice ablation continued until the end of the study.

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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→