MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412363337 · doi:10.1002/2016gl069296

Anthropogenic influence on the frequency of extreme temperatures in China

2016· article· en· W2412363337 on OpenAlexaff
Chunhui Lu, Ying Sun, Hui Wan, Xuebin Zhang, Hong Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaBijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGent
KeywordsCoupled model intercomparison projectEnvironmental scienceClimatologyDaytimeAtmospheric sciencesClimate modelChinaClimate changeGeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Anthropogenic influence on the frequencies of warm days, cold days, warm nights, and cold nights are detected in the observations of Chinese temperature data covering 1958–2002. We used an optimal fingerprinting method to compare these temperature indices computed from a newly homogenized observational data set with those from simulations conducted with multiple climate models that participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5. We found the clear anthropogenic signals in the observational records of frequency changes in warm and cold days and nights. We also found that the models appear to be doing a better job in simulating the observed frequencies of daytime extremes than nighttime extremes. The model‐simulated variability appears to be consistent with that of the observations, providing confidence on the detection results. Additionally, the anthropogenic signal can be clearly detected at subnational scales, with detectable human influence found in Eastern and Western China separately.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations70
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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