MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114214782 · doi:10.1175/jcli3466.1

A Nonlinear Analysis of the ENSO Cycle and Its Interdecadal Changes*

2005· article· en· W2114214782 on OpenAlexafffund
Soon‐Il An, William W. Hsieh, Fei‐Fei Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsThermoclineClimatologyEl Niño Southern OscillationGeologyInstabilityNonlinear systemSea surface temperatureAnnual cycleAsymmetryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The nonlinear principal component analysis (NLPCA), via a neural network approach, was applied to thermocline anomalies in the tropical Pacific. While the tropical sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies had been nonlinearly mapped by the NLPCA mode 1 onto an open curve in the data space, the thermocline anomalies were mapped to a closed curve, suggesting that ENSO is a cyclic phenomenon. The NLPCA mode 1 of the thermocline anomalies reveals the nonlinear evolution of the ENSO cycle with much asymmetry for the different phases: The weak heat accumulation in the whole equatorial Pacific is followed by the strong El Niño, and the subsequent strong drain of equatorial heat content toward the off-equatorial region precedes a weak La Niña. This asymmetric ENSO evolution implies that the nonlinear instability enhances the growth of El Niño, but dwarfs the growth of La Niña. The nonlinear ENSO cycle was found to have changed since the late 1970s. For the pre-1980s the ENSO cycle associated with the thermocline is less asymmetrical than that during the post-1980s, indicating that the nonlinearity of the ENSO cycle has become stronger since the late 1970s.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207