Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, the predictability of the Pacific–North American (PNA) pattern is evaluated on time scales from days to months using state-of-the-art dynamical multiple-model ensembles including the Canadian Historical Forecast Project (HFP2) ensemble, the Development of a European Multimodel Ensemble System for Seasonal-to-Interannual Prediction (DEMETER) ensemble, and the Ensemble-Based Predictions of Climate Changes and their Impacts (ENSEMBLES). Some interesting findings in this study include (i) multiple-model ensemble (MME) skill was better than most of the individual models; (ii) both actual prediction skill and potential predictability increased as the averaging time scale increased from days to months; (iii) there is no significant difference in actual skill between coupled and uncoupled models, in contrast with the potential predictability where coupled models performed better than uncoupled models; (iv) relative entropy (REA) is an effective measure in characterizing the potential predictability of individual prediction, whereas the mutual information (MI) is a reliable indicator of overall prediction skill; and (v) compared with conventional potential predictability measures of the signal-to-noise ratio, the MI-based measures characterized more potential predictability when the ensemble spread varied over initial conditions. Further analysis found that the signal component dominated the dispersion component in REA for PNA potential predictability from days to seasons. Also, the PNA predictability is highly related to the signal of the tropical sea surface temperature (SST), and SST–PNA correlation patterns resemble the typical ENSO structure, suggesting that ENSO is the main source of PNA seasonal predictability. The predictable component analysis (PrCA) of atmospheric variability further confirmed the above conclusion; that is, PNA is one of the most predictable patterns in the climate variability over the Northern Hemisphere, which originates mainly from the ENSO forcing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".