MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2295152431 · doi:10.2172/1060008

Do Coupled Climate Models Correctly Simulate the Upward Branch of the Deep Ocean Global Conveyor?

2013· report· en· W2295152431 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jorge L. Sarmiento, Stephanie M. Downes, Daniele Bianchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral Circulation ModelClimatologyCirculation (fluid dynamics)UpwellingEarth system scienceClimate modelOcean currentMeteorologyOceanographyClimate changeGeographyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large-scale meridional overturning circulation (MOC) connects the deep ocean, a major reservoir of carbon, to the other components of the climate system and must therefore be accurately represented in Earth System Models. Our project aims to address the specific question of the pathways and mechanisms controlling the upwelling branch of the MOC, a subject of significant disagreement between models and observational syntheses, and among general circulation models. Observations of these pathways are limited, particularly in regions of complex hydrography such as the Southern Ocean. As such, we rely on models to examine theories of the overturning circulation, both physically and biogeochemically. This grant focused on a particular aspect of the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) where there is currently significant disagreement between models and observationally based analyses of the MOC, and amongst general circulation models. In particular, the research focused on addressing the following questions: 1. Where does the deep water that sinks in the polar regions rise to the surface? 2. What processes are responsible for this rise? 3. Do state-of-the-art coupled GCMs capture these processes? Our research had three key components: observational synthesis, model development and model analysis. In this final report we outline the key results from these areas of research for the 2007 to 2012 grant period. The research described here was carried out primarily by graduate student, Daniele Bianchi (now a Postdoc at McGill University, Canada), and Postdoc Stephanie Downes (now a Research Fellow at The Australian national University, Australia). Additional support was provided for programmers Jennifer Simeon as well as Rick Slater.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→