Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two Canadian Warmings(CWs) in December 1965 and November 1968 were chosen to investigate the circulation characteristics of CWs.Weak warming was observed at the middle and lower levels of the stratosphere in the two CW cases.Accompanying the weak warming,the westerly in the stratosphere changed to an easterly one,but lasted only a short while.The circulation anomaly in both CW cases was weaker compared to that in the stratospheric sudden warming(SSW).The pre-conditioned process that was observed in the SSW case was not observed in the two CW cases.As the main factor of the stratospheric disturbance,the upward planetary wave was enhanced prior to and after day 0 of the two CW cases,unlike in the SSW case.Arctic Oscillation(AO) evolution was employed to show the downward stratospheric vortex circulation anomaly.Although the two CWs caused an AO anomaly in the high stratosphere,the AO anomaly barely reached the lower troposphere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".