Arctic polar vortex variability in the Canadian middle atmosphere model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic polar vortex variability in the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM) is documented. Two integrations of the CMAM are compared to assess the effects of parametrized non‐orographic gravity waves on the frequency and timing of stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs), as well as on the potential for polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) formation. The first integration does not include parametrized non‐orographic gravity waves while the second integration does. The first integration captures the basic features of the observed northern hemisphere (NH) winter circulation although the polar night jet (PNJ) is significantly too weak and poleward shifted. Together with the weaker than observed PNJ are SSWs that occur too often and too early, resulting in an unrealistically low early to mid‐winter potential for PSC formation. Whereas, by design, the inclusion of parametrized non‐orographic gravity waves in the second integration significantly improves the southern hemisphere (SH) circulation, the strength of the NH PNJ is further reduced relative to the first integration, and the SSW frequency and PSC formation potential further degraded. Finally, the synoptic evolution and wavebreaking signature of the simulated and observed SSW events are compared through the application of a composite high resolution contour advection algorithm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".