MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2590915637 · doi:10.1002/2016jd025962

Tracking the Pacific Decadal Precession

2017· article· en· W2590915637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce T. Anderson, Jason C. Furtado, Emanuele Di Lorenzo, Daniel J. Short Gianotti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPacific decadal oscillationClimatologyPrecessionOscillation (cell signaling)Scale (ratio)Mode (computer interface)Environmental scienceTemporal scalesGeologyEl Niño Southern OscillationGeographyComputer sciencePhysicsCartographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Events of recent years—including extended droughts across California, record fires across western Canada, and destabilization of marine ecosystems—highlight the profound impact of multiannual to decadal‐scale climate shifts upon physical, biological, and socioeconomic systems. While previous research has focused on the influence of decadal‐scale climate oscillations such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation/Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, recent research has revealed the presence of a quasi‐decadal mode of climate variability that, unlike the quasi‐stationary standing wave‐like structure of the oscillatory modes, involves a progression of atmospheric pressure anomalies around the North Pacific, which has been termed the Pacific Decadal Precession (PDP). In this paper we develop a set of methods to track the spatial and temporal evolutions of the PDP within historical observations as well as numerical model simulations. In addition, we provide a method that approximates the time evolution of the PDP across the full period of available data for real‐time monitoring of the PDP. Through the development of these tracking methods, we hope to provide the community with a consistent framework for future analysis and diagnosis of the PDP's characteristics and underlying processes, thereby avoiding the use of different, and disparate, phenomenological‐ and mathematical‐based indices that can confound our understanding of the PDP and its evolution.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→