MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962984288 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.24753729

Comparison of the atmospheric forcing and oceanographic responses between the Labrador Sea and the Norwegian and Barents seas

2013· other· en· W6962984288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorth Atlantic oscillationForcing (mathematics)NorwegianSea surface temperatureClimate changeRange (aeronautics)Sea iceArctic sea ice decline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No abstracts are to be cited without prior reference to the author. A comparison of the mean conditions and variability in the climate and physical oceanographic characteristics between the Labrador Sea and surrounding shelves and the Norwegian and Barents seas is presented. Several climate and oceanographic variables, including air temperatures, eastward winds, heat fluxes, and the range of seasonal sea surface temperature range show a general latitudinal dependence within each of the two regions but with regional varying rates of change with latitude. The previously reported out-of-phase relationships on interannual to decadal time scales of air and sea temperatures and sea-ice conditions between the Labrador Sea and the Norwegian and Barents seas regions from the 1950s until the mid-1990s was found. This is owing to their opposite response to the variability in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). However, from the mid-1990s, air and sea temperatures in both regions generally have been in phase, showing strong warming and reduced ice coverage. The cause of this change is related to changes in the spatial structure of the atmospheric pressure patterns, resulting in a general reduction in the importance of NAO forcing over the North Atlantic.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)French-language works237,207