MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2073565712 · doi:10.1029/2005jd006920

Analysis of snow in the 20th and 21st century Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled climate model simulations

2006· article· en· W2073565712 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen J. Déry, Eric F. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorthern HemisphereSnowClimatologyClimate changeClimate modelSnow lineEnvironmental scienceSpring (device)Physical geographyGeologySnow coverGeographyMeteorologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluate the representation of the 20th century Northern Hemisphere, North American, and Eurasian snow cover extent, frequency, and mass by the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory coupled climate model, version 2 (CM2) and then explore the 21st century trends and changes in these quantities. The CM2 simulations of 20th century climate capture the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent and produce a mean annual snow area of 25 × 106 km2 that equals the satellite‐based observations for the period 1973–2000. The simulated snow cover frequency and snow mass generally decline from north to south, but longitudinal gradients in these variables are also found. Snow mass over North America, especially during spring, is underestimated by CM2. Simulations of 21st century climate using three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emission Scenarios reveal strong trends in Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent, frequency, and mass. These simulations suggest that the annual Northern Hemisphere mean snow cover extent (total snow mass) will decrease by 12 to 26% (20 to 40%) by 2100 from their 21st century mean values. Large declines in 21st century snow cover frequency (up to 50%) and snow mass (up to 100 kg m−2) arise during fall, winter, and spring over southern Canada and the northern United States, the Western Cordillera of North America, and western Eurasia compared to the 20th century CM2 simulations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→