The software architecture of climate models: a graphical comparison of CMIP5 and EMICAR5 configurations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We analyze the source code of eight coupled climate models, selected from those that participated in the CMIP5 (Taylor et al., 2012) or EMICAR5 (Eby et al., 2013; Zickfeld et al., 2013) intercomparison projects. For each model, we sort the preprocessed code into components and subcomponents based on dependency structure. We then create software architecture diagrams that show the relative sizes of these components/subcomponents and the flow of data between them. The diagrams also illustrate several major classes of climate model design; the distribution of complexity between components, which depends on historical development paths as well as the conscious goals of each institution; and the sharing of components between different modeling groups. These diagrams offer insights into the similarities and differences in structure between climate models, and have the potential to be useful tools for communication between scientists, scientific institutions, and the public.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it