MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132983905 · doi:10.1029/2012gl053381

North Atlantic wave height trends as reconstructed from the 20th century reanalysis

2012· article· en· W2132983905 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaolan L. Wang, Yang Feng, Val R. Swail

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologySignificant wave heightClassification of discontinuitiesLatitudeGeologyHomogeneousNorth Atlantic oscillationGeographyGeodesyOceanographyWind waveMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports on the 1871–2010 trends in significant wave heights ( H s ) in the North Atlantic, as statistically reconstructed from the 20th century reanalysis (20CR) ensemble of mean sea level pressure (SLP) fields. The 20CR SLP data set for the North Atlantic has been reported to be homogeneous since 1871, although it has discontinuities before 1949 in other regions. A multivariate regression model with lagged dependent variable is used to represent the SLP‐ H s relationship. It is calibrated and validated using the ERA‐Interim reanalysis of H s and SLP for the period 1981–2010.Trends in the reconstructed annual mean and maximum H s are found to be consistent with those derived from two dynamical wave reanalysis data sets (MSC50 and ERA40), which indicates robustness of the trend estimates. The trend patterns of extreme H s generally feature increases in the northeast North Atlantic with decreases in the mid‐latitudes; but there are seasonal variations. The main features of the patterns of trends over the last half century or so are also seen in the last 140‐yr period (1871–2010). However, the trend magnitudes are much greater in the last half century than in the 140 years.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations74
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207