MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011255563 · doi:10.3137/ao.410403

Improvements to the non‐linear principal component analysis method, with applications to ENSO and QBO

2003· article· en· W2011255563 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen C. Newbigging, Lawrence A. Mysak, William W. Hsieh

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProjection (relational algebra)Parametrization (atmospheric modeling)Principal component analysisAnomaly (physics)ComputationMathematicsFunction (biology)Oscillation (cell signaling)GeologyClimatologyAlgorithmStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two improvements to the Non‐linear Principal Component Analysis (NLPCA) method are presented. In the normal application of this method, a non‐linear curve C is found that best fits the data. The method provides a projection function mapping from the data space to the curve C. However, this projection function is faulty in that points in the data space are generally not projected onto their closest neighbours on C. Here, a new projection function is introduced which ensures that the data points are projected onto their closest neighbours on C, resulting in an increase in the amount of variance explained by the NLPCA mode. This is illustrated by an analysis of the sea surface temperature anomaly data from the tropical Pacific, where the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon is manifested. A second shortcoming of the NLPCA method is that the curve C comes with a parametrization which is arbitrary and has no physical interpretation. Here, the curve is re‐parametrized by arc length. This allows the computation of more meaningful time series, which we illustrate through an analysis of the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation (QBO) in the equatorial stratospheric zonal wind data.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207