MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047159570 · doi:10.1175/2008jas2967.1

Nonlinear Representation of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation

2009· article· en· W2047159570 on OpenAlexaff
Bei-Wei Lu, Lionel Pandolfo, Kevin Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuasi-biennial oscillationEquatorClimatologyStratosphereNonlinear systemNorthern HemisphereForcing (mathematics)Principal component analysisAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceOscillation (cell signaling)Rossby waveGeologyMathematicsLatitudePhysicsGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A nonlinear principal component analysis (NLPCA) is applied to monthly mean zonal wind observations from January 1956 through December 2007 taken at seven pressure levels between 10 and 70 hPa in the stratosphere near the equator to represent the well-known quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) and investigate its variability and structure. The NLPCA is conducted using a simplified two–hidden layer feed-forward neural network that alleviates the problems of nonuniqueness of solutions and data overfitting that plague nonlinear techniques of principal component analysis. The QBO is used as a test bed for the new compact model of NLPCA. The two nonlinear principal components of the dataset of the equatorial stratospheric zonal winds, determined by the compact NLPCA, offer a clear picture of the QBO. In particular, their structure shows that the QBO phase consists of a predominant 28.3-month cycle that is modulated by an 11-yr cycle as well as by longer cycles. The differences in wind variability between westerly and easterly regimes and between Northern Hemisphere winter and summer seasons and the tendency for a seasonal synchronization of the QBO phases are well captured.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207