MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168212007 · doi:10.1002/2014gl062773

China experiencing the recent warming hiatus

2015· article· en· W2168212007 on OpenAlexaff
Qingxiang Li, Su Yang, Wenhui Xu, Xiaolan L. Wang, P. D. Jones, D. E. Parker, Liming Zhou, Yang Feng, Yun Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHiatusClimatologyMean radiant temperatureEnvironmental scienceContext (archaeology)DrynessGlobal warmingClimate changeAtmospheric sciencesGeographyGeologyOceanographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on the homogenized data set, we analyze changes in mean temperature and some extreme temperature indices over China since 1961 and especially during the recent warming hiatus period (1998–2012) in a global average context. The result shows that the decrease of annual mean maximum has contributed most to the decreases in overall mean temperature and in diurnal temperature range (DTR) during the warming hiatus period. In most parts of China except the southwest, the summer mean maximum temperature ( T xS ) shows the largest increase, while the winter mean minimum temperature ( T nW ) indicates slight cooling trends. These changes have augmented the seasonal cycle and increased the likelihood of extreme warm and cold events. Further analyses reveal that the increases in T xS are significantly correlated with concurrent increases in solar radiation. In southwest China, the annual mean temperature, T xS , T nW , and DTR increased during 1998–2012, possibly related to increased dryness in this region during the hiatus period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.340
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations144
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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