MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2519199691 · doi:10.5194/gmd-2016-199

Review of the global models used within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI)

2016· article· en· W2519199691 on OpenAlexaff
Olaf Morgenstern, Michaela I. Hegglin, Eugene Rozanov, Fiona M. O’Connor, Nathan Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Alexander T. Archibald, Slimane Bekki, Neal Butchart, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Makoto Deushi, Sandip Dhomse, Rolando R. García, Steven C. Hardiman, Larry W. Horowitz, Patrick Jöckel, Béatrice Josse, Douglas E. Kinnison, Meiyun Lin, E. Mancini, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Virginie Marécal, Martine Michou, Luke D. Oman, G. Pitari, David A. Plummer, Laura E. Revell, David Saint‐Martin, Robyn Schofield, Andrea Stenke, Kane A. Stone, Kengo Sudo, Taichu Y. Tanaka, Simone Tilmes, Y. Yamashita, Kohei Yoshida, Guang Zeng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersMarsden FundCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueEuropean CommissionCenter for Neuroscience and Regenerative MedicineCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungSeventh Framework ProgrammeMet OfficeAustralian GovernmentRoyal Society Te ApārangiNational Computational InfrastructureDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRadiative forcingClimate modelClimate changeForcing (mathematics)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We present an overview of state-of-the-art chemistry-climate and -transport models that are used within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI). CCMI aims to conduct a detailed evaluation of participating models using process-oriented diagnostics derived from observations in order to gain confidence in the models' projections of the stratospheric ozone layer, air quality, where applicable global climate change, and the interactions between them. Interpretation of these diagnostics requires detailed knowledge of the radiative, chemical, dynamical, and physical processes incorporated in the models. Also an understanding of the degree to which CCMI recommendations for simulations have been followed is necessary to understand model response to anthropogenic and natural forcing and also to explain inter-model differences. This becomes even more important given the ongoing development and the ever-growing complexity of these models. This paper also provides an overview of the available CCMI simulations with the aim to inform CCMI data users.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→