MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539683852 · doi:10.1002/wcc.122

Parameterizations: representing key processes in climate models without resolving them

2011· article· en· W1539683852 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)Climate modelScale (ratio)Set (abstract data type)Stochastic modellingKey (lock)Climate changeStatistical physicsEconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsGeographyStatisticsGeologyEconomicsPhysicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A basic requirement of climate models is to account for the effects of processes that cannot be represented in spatial or temporal detail because of limitations imposed by resolution or other modeling considerations. Such parameterizations specify an average or expected effect of such processes on the resolved variables. This has traditionally been formulated in a deterministic way in terms of the resolved variables as the mean effect averaged across many realizations of the small scales with the same large‐scale situation, implicitly or explicitly assuming the existence of some equilibrium state as a closure condition. More recently, the uncertainty of such closure assumptions has led to the use of stochastic forms of parameterization, where the required effects on the resolved scale are determined from a set of randomly chosen realizations of unresolved processes that have a known probability of occurrence given the resolved state. Theoretical and practical approaches to parameterization are discussed and illustrated with selected examples. New directions that employ hybrid modeling strategies and stochastic methods to overcome well‐known parameterization difficulties are discussed. WIREs Clim Change 2011 2 482–497 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.122 This article is categorized under: Climate Models and Modeling > Model Components

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.119 · 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