MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1941837589 · doi:10.1029/2012gl053283

Understanding Atlantic multi‐decadal variability prediction skill

2012· article· en· W1941837589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Javier García‐Serrano, Francisco J. Doblas‐Reyes, Caio A. S. Coelho

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsOcean gyreInitializationForcing (mathematics)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceForecast skillRadiative forcingSubtropicsOceanographyGeologyClimate changeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initialized and uninitialized decadal retrospective forecasts (re‐forecasts) are used to assess the key regions providing multi‐year prediction skill of the Atlantic multi‐decadal sea surface temperature variability (AMV) and to address the relative roles of the initial conditions and external forcing on this skill. The results show that there is a decay in the AMV skill with forecast time, which is likely to be driven by skill degradation in predicting the AMV subpolar branch due to the lack of skill in predicting the subtropical branch. An important role of the varying radiative forcing in the AMV‐related prediction skill is found over the Labrador and Irminger deep convection regions. Initialized predictions show the largest impact on the improvement in the AMV‐related skill over the area where the Atlantic subpolar gyre operates. Initialization appears also to correct an unrealistic anticorrelation between the AMV phase and the Gulf Stream found in the uninitialized re‐forecasts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207