MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551871807 · doi:10.1002/2016gl071396

Skillful seasonal forecasts of Arctic sea ice retreat and advance dates in a dynamical forecast system

2016· article· en· W2551871807 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Sigmond, M. C. Reader, Gregory M. Flato, William J. Merryfield, Adrienne Tivy

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologySea iceArcticArctic ice packForecast skillEnvironmental scienceThe arcticMeteorologyOceanographyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The need for skillful seasonal forecasts of Arctic sea ice is rapidly increasing. Technology to perform such forecasts with coupled atmosphere‐ocean‐sea ice systems has only recently become available, with previous skill evaluations mainly limited to area‐integrated quantities. Here we show, based on a large set of retrospective ensemble model forecasts, that a dynamical forecast system produces skillful seasonal forecasts of local sea ice retreat and advance dates—variables that are of great interest to a wide range of end users. Advance dates can generally be skillfully predicted at longer lead times (~5 months on average) than retreat dates (~3 months). The skill of retreat date forecasts mainly stems from persistence of initial sea ice anomalies, whereas advance date forecasts benefit from longer time scale and more predictable variability in ocean temperatures. These results suggest that further investments in the development of dynamical seasonal forecast systems may result in significant socioeconomic benefits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207