MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402596465 · doi:10.1260/0958-305x.21.7.815

Nomenclature, Radiative Forcing and Temperature Projections in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (AR4)

2010· article· en· W2402596465 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

VenueEnergy & Environment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiative forcingClimate changeConfusionClimate sensitivityClimatologyGlobal warmingEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxideForcing (mathematics)Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphereObligationRange (aeronautics)Atmospheric sciencesMeteorologyClimate modelGeographyPolitical scienceLawChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By not following standard scientific nomenclature for parts per million by volume (ppmv) and parts per million by mass (ppm), the authors of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis ( AR4), introduced confusion between these units. This confusion in AR4 has spread to the scientific community and has potential to create problems. Carbon dioxide contributed approximately 11% of the change in atmospheric warming during the period from the ice ages to the pre-industrial level of 275 ppmv. This is consistent with the current proportion of warming by carbon dioxide, and casts doubt on carbon dioxide being almost 100% of the cause of atmospheric warming from 275 to 378 ppmv. The climate sensitivity parameter calculated for the projected temperature change range of 2.9°C to 6.4°C is physically impossible to achieve. The lower temperature range is unreliable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has an important obligation to make these problems known to policymakers and the public.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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