MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010408594 · doi:10.1029/2009gl041269

Attribution of anthropogenic influence on seasonal sea level pressure

2009· article· en· W2010408594 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsLatitudeClimatologyNorthern HemisphereSouthern HemisphereSubtropicsMiddle latitudesBorealEnvironmental scienceTropicsHigh latitudeAtmospheric sciencesSea levelGeologyOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous analyses of sea level pressure (SLP) trends have often focused on boreal winter trends. Here we demonstrate that externally‐forced SLP trends are observed in all four seasons, with simulated and observed decreases in SLP at high latitudes and increases elsewhere. We find that the observed pattern of seasonal mean zonal mean SLP changes is inconsistent with simulated internal variability, and we detect anthropogenic influence independently of natural influence on SLP. When we divide the globe into the mid‐ and high‐latitude regions of both hemispheres and the tropics and subtropics, we find that external influence is only detectable in the low‐latitude region, where models and observations show increasing trends in SLP, and where internal variability is low, and not in the mid‐ and high‐latitude regions of either hemisphere. Low‐latitude increases in SLP, which are significant compared to internal variability, but which have previously received little attention, could have important regional climate impacts.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207