MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043242299

Sea-ice Response to the 536/540 CE Double Volcanic Eruption Event

2020· dissertation· en· W7043242299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolcanoInsolationVulcanian eruptionEvent (particle physics)Cover (algebra)Sea levelSnow coverSea surface temperature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of sea ice in the climate response after the 536 and 540 CE volcanic eruptions hasbeen investigated through MPI-ESM simulations with imposed volcanic forcing. There is aclear response in the Arctic sea-ice cover to the volcanic forcing. The largest sea-ice areaanomalies are found in the summer/autumn following each of the eruptions, when it is foundto be up to 1.6*1012m2(24%) larger relative to the mean of the pre-industrial control run.There is a large spatial variability both in the sea-ice response and the surface temperatureanomalies. The strongest surface cooling is found in the Arctic, where the mean temperatureanomaly reaches -4.0oC after each of the eruptions, compared to a minimum of -1.5oC and-2.0oC in the NH mean after the 536 and 540 CE eruptions respectively. A prominent patternof negative temperature anomalies is found along the sea-ice edge. The most anomaloussea-ice cover is found in the Barents Sea and the Labrador Sea. The timing and spatialdistribution of surface temperature anomalies after the eruptions is more consistent withchanges in the sea-ice cover and subsequent modification of ocean currents, than with the decreased insolation directly or the dynamical response of the atmosphere.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207