MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140051688 · doi:10.1002/grl.50249

Annular mode changes in the CMIP5 simulations

2013· article· en· W2140051688 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoupled model intercomparison projectMode (computer interface)VolcanoClimatologyEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesArctic oscillationIrradianceOscillation (cell signaling)AerosolClimate modelMeteorologyGeologyClimate changePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate simulated changes in the annular modes in historical and RCP 4.5 scenario simulations of 37 models from the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), a much larger ensemble of models than has previously been used to investigate annular mode trends, with improved resolution and forcings. The CMIP5 models on average simulate increases in the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and Southern Annular Mode (SAM) in every season by 2100, and no CMIP5 model simulates a significant decrease in either the NAM or SAM in any season. No significant increase in the NAM or North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is simulated in response to volcanic aerosol, and no significant NAM or NAO response to solar irradiance variations is simulated. The CMIP5 models simulate a significant negative SAM response to volcanic aerosol in MAM and JJA, and a significant positive SAM response to solar irradiance variations in MAM, JJA and DJF.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.280 · 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