MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531211372 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-16-0412.1

Attribution of Extreme Events in Arctic Sea Ice Extent

2016· article· en· W2531211372 on OpenAlexaff
Megan C. Kirchmeier‐Young, Francis W. Zwiers, Nathan P. Gillett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologySea iceArctic ice packArctic sea ice declineArcticThe arcticGeologyOceanographyEnvironmental scienceAntarctic sea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arctic sea ice extent (SIE) has decreased over recent decades, with record-setting minimum events in 2007 and again in 2012. A question of interest across many disciplines concerns the extent to which such extreme events can be attributed to anthropogenic influences. First, a detection and attribution analysis is performed for trends in SIE anomalies over the observed period. The main objective of this study is an event attribution analysis for extreme minimum events in Arctic SIE. Although focus is placed on the 2012 event, the results are generalized to extreme events of other magnitudes, including both past and potential future extremes. Several ensembles of model responses are used, including two single-model large ensembles. Using several different metrics to define the events in question, it is shown that an extreme SIE minimum of the magnitude seen in 2012 is consistent with a scenario including anthropogenic influence and is extremely unlikely in a scenario excluding anthropogenic influence. Hence, the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum provides a counterexample to the often-quoted idea that individual extreme events cannot be attributed to human influence.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations281
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207