The Arctic Predictability and Prediction on Seasonal-to-Interannual TimEscales (APPOSITE) data set version 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Recent decades have seen significant developments in climate prediction capabilities at seasonal-to-interannual timescales. However, until recently the potential of such systems to predict Arctic climate had rarely been assessed. This paper describes a multi-model predictability experiment which was run as part of the Arctic Predictability and Prediction On Seasonal to Interannual Timescales (APPOSITE) project. The main goal of APPOSITE was to quantify the timescales on which Arctic climate is predictable. In order to achieve this, a coordinated set of idealised initial-value predictability experiments, with seven general circulation models, was conducted. This was the first model intercomparison project designed to quantify the predictability of Arctic climate on seasonal to interannual timescales. Here we present a description of the archived data set (which is available at the British Atmospheric Data Centre), an assessment of Arctic sea ice extent and volume predictability estimates in these models, and an investigation into to what extent predictability is dependent on the initial state. The inclusion of additional models expands the range of sea ice volume and extent predictability estimates, demonstrating that there is model diversity in the potential to make seasonal-to-interannual timescale predictions. We also investigate whether sea ice forecasts started from extreme high and low sea ice initial states exhibit higher levels of potential predictability than forecasts started from close to the models' mean state, and find that the result depends on the metric. Although designed to address Arctic predictability, we describe the archived data here so that others can use this data set to assess the predictability of other regions and modes of climate variability on these timescales, such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".