MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067968537 · doi:10.1029/2008gl034590

The World Avoided by the Montreal Protocol

2008· article· en· W2067968537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olaf Morgenstern, Peter Braesicke, M. M. Hurwitz, Fiona M. O’Connor, Andrew C. Bushell, Colin Johnson, J. A. Pyle

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilEuropean CommissionSight Research UK
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolOzone layerClimatologyEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesOzoneOzone depletionAtmosphere (unit)Climate changeLatitudeAtmospheric temperatureMode (computer interface)PolarStratosphereMeteorologyGeographyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of increased stratospheric chlorine, averted by controls imposed by the Montreal Protocol, is studied using the UKCA chemistry‐climate model. We contrast an atmosphere with 9 ppbv Cly, which could have occurred by ∼2030, with the present‐day loading (3.5 ppbv), and consider the response of climate to resulting ozone perturbations, disregarding the radiative impact of the additional CFCs. Ozone columns decline everywhere, with climate impacts in both polar regions. The additional chlorine leads to a strengthening of the Southern Annular Mode, versus the reference, and Antarctic surface temperature differences resemble observed changes. Over Eurasia, winter surface temperature changes project on the Northern Annular Mode. These high‐latitude temperature perturbations (>1 K) are larger than the global mean temperature rises projected over the next few decades, and perhaps comparable with projected regional changes. The Montreal Protocol has not only averted further damage to the ozone layer but has helped prevent significant regional climate change.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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

Citations136
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207