MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6995442272

Observations and modeling of the Marginal Ice Zone

2016· article· en· W6995442272 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAMS Degree Thesis (University of Bologna) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArctic ice packSea iceDrift iceFast iceArcticArctic sea ice declineSwellLead (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global climate change in recent decades has strongly influenced the Arctic generating pronounced warming accompanied by significant reduction of sea ice in seasonally ice-covered seas and a dramatic increase of open water regions exposed to wind [Stephenson et al., 2011]. By strongly scattering the wave energy, thick multiyear ice prevents swell from penetrating deeply into the Arctic pack ice. However, with the recent changes affecting Arctic sea ice, waves gain more energy from the extended fetch and can therefore penetrate further into the pack ice. Arctic sea ice also appears weaker during melt season, extending the transition zone between thick multi-year ice and the open ocean. This region is called the Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ).
\nIn the Arctic, the MIZ is mainly encountered in the marginal seas, such as the Nordic Seas, the Barents Sea, the Beaufort Sea and the Labrador Sea. Formed by numerous blocks of sea ice of various diameters (floes) the MIZ, under certain conditions, allows maritime transportation stimulating dreams of industrial and touristic exploitation of these regions and possibly allowing, in the next future, a maritime connection between the Atlantic and the Pacific. With the increasing human presence in the Arctic, waves pose security and safety issues. As marginal seas are targeted for oil and gas exploitation, understanding and predicting ocean waves and their effects on sea ice become crucial for structure design and for real time safety of operations. The juxtaposition of waves and sea ice represents a risk for personnel and equipment deployed on ice, and may complicate critical operations such as platform evacuations. The risk is difficult to evaluate because there are no long-term observations of waves in ice, swell events are difficult to predict from local conditions, ice breakup can occur on very short time-scales and wave-ice interactions are beyond the scope of current forecasting models [Liu and Mollo-Christensen, 1988,Marko, 2003].
\n
\nIn this thesis, a newly developed Waves in Ice Model (WIM) [Williams et al., 2013a,Williams et al., 2013b] and its related Ocean and Sea Ice model (OSIM) will be used to study the MIZ and the improvements of wave modeling in ice infested waters. The following work has been conducted in collaboration with the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center and within the SWARP project which aims to extend operational services supporting human activity in the Arctic by including forecast of waves in ice-covered seas, forecast of sea-ice in the presence of waves and remote sensing of both waves and sea ice conditions. The WIM will be included in the downstream forecasting services provided by Copernicus marine environment monitoring service.
\n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.177
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMS Degree Thesis (University of Bologna)Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207