MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2074255403 · doi:10.1029/2008gl034980

Reply to comment by Igor Esau on “Do stable atmospheric layers exist?”

2009· article· en· W2074255403 on OpenAlexaff
S. Lovejoy, A. F. Tuck, Daniel Schertzer, S. J. Hovde

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)PhilosophyEpistemologyTheoretical physicsPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to thank Esau (2009) for attempting to save the classical notion of stable layers; his argument is very close to one raised up by an anonymous reviewer of Lovejoy et al. (2008b). Since a similar argument is often invoked to justify atmospheric applications of linear gravity wave theories, it appears to be widespread in the community. We therefore hope this debate will clarify the issue.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0250.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics→French-language works237,207→