MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1945829080 · doi:10.1029/2012gl052261

Quantifying the relevance of atmospheric blocking for co‐located temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere on (sub‐)daily time scales

2012· article· en· W1945829080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephan Pfahl, Heini Wernli

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBlocking (statistics)Northern HemisphereClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesAtmospheric circulationForcing (mathematics)LatitudeAtmospheric temperatureMiddle latitudesGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric blocking can influence near‐surface temperature via circulation and radiative forcing. This study investigates the relevance of blocking for co‐located (sub‐)daily temperature extremes and the spatial variability of this relationship in the Northern Hemisphere. It is shown that over large parts of the high‐latitude continents warm temperature extremes often occur simultaneously with atmospheric blocking at the same location. Taking also weak blocks into account, more than 80% of the six‐hourly warm extremes are associated with blocking, e.g., in eastern Canada, Scandinavia and parts of Siberia. On the contrary, cold extremes typically are not related to co‐located atmospheric blocking. This difference between warm and cold extremes points to differences also in the physical driving mechanisms of the extremes. The strong linkage of warm temperature extremes and blocking should be considered when investigating changes of temperature extremes with global warming.

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)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations421
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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