MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2078812110 · doi:10.1029/2007gl029344

Changes in the Arctic Oscillation under increased atmospheric greenhouse gases

2007· article· en· W2078812110 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aiming Wu, William W. Hsieh, G. J. Boer, Francis W. Zwiers

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasArctic oscillationClimatologyNorth Atlantic oscillationEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric circulationAtmospheric pressureAtmospheric sciencesOscillation (cell signaling)Climate changeGeneral Circulation ModelThe arcticArcticSea levelGeologyOceanographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic Oscillation (AO) under increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) was studied by comparing an ensemble of simulations from 13 coupled general circulation models with GHG at the pre‐industrial level and at the late 20th century level, for November to March. The change in the linear AO pattern as GHG increased reveals positive sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies centered over the Gulf of Alaska, and weaker negative SLP anomalies over eastern Canada and North Atlantic – a pattern resembling the nonlinear AO pattern arising from a quadratic relation to the AO index. This quadratic AO pattern itself has positive SLP anomalies receding from Europe but strengthening over the Gulf of Alaska and surrounding areas as GHG increased. This study points to the importance of the nonlinear structure in determining how the linear oscillatory pattern changes when there is a change in the mean climate.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→