MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115487955 · doi:10.1002/qj.310

Simultaneous Atlantic–Pacific blocking and the Northern Annular Mode

2008· article· en· W2115487955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Woollings, Brian J. Hoskins

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsTrough (economics)ClimatologyPolarPolar vortexLatitudeBlocking (statistics)Environmental scienceGeographyTroposphereGeologyOceanographyPhysicsGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A synoptic situation termed ‘high‐latitude blocking’ (HLB) is shown to occur frequently in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors, and to result in flow anomalies very similar to those associated with the negative phase of the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) in the respective sector. There is a weak but significant link between the occurrence of HLB in the two sectors, with Atlantic HLB tending to lead Pacific HLB by 1–3 days. This link arises from rare events in which both sectors are almost simultaneously affected by a large‐scale wave‐breaking event which distorts the polar trough over Northern Canada. In several cases the tropospheric wave‐breaking occurs in tandem with a large‐scale disturbance of the stratospheric polar vortex. There is, therefore, a physical link between the Atlantic and Pacific sectors, but analysis suggests that this does not contribute to determining the pattern of the NAM, as conventionally defined from monthly mean data. However, an alternative version of the NAM, derived directly from daily data, does appear to reflect this physical link. These conflicting results highlight the sensitivity of the NAM to the period over which data are averaged. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations48
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207