MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595915851 · doi:10.5194/cp-14-473-2018

Arctic hydroclimate variability during the last 2000 years: current understanding and research challenges

2018· article· en· W2595915851 on OpenAlexaff
Hans W. Linderholm, Marie Nicolle, Pierre Francus, Konrad Gajewski, Samuli Helama, Atte Korhola, Olga N Solomina, Zicheng Yu, Peng Zhang, W. J. D'Andrea, Maxime Debret, Dmitry Divine, Björn E. Gunnarson, Neil J. Loader, Nicolas Masséi, Kristina Seftigen, Elizabeth K. Thomas, J. Werner, Sofia Andersson, Annika Berntsson, Tomi P. Luoto, Liisa Nevalainen, Saija Saarni, Minna Väliranta

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate of the past · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersVetenskapsrådetAcademy of FinlandNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsArcticClimatologyProxy (statistics)Context (archaeology)Climate changeEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGeographyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Reanalysis data show an increasing trend in Arctic precipitation over the 20th century, but changes are not homogenous across seasons or space. The observed hydroclimate changes are expected to continue and possibly accelerate in the coming century, not only affecting pan-Arctic natural ecosystems and human activities, but also lower latitudes through the atmospheric and ocean circulations. However, a lack of spatiotemporal observational data makes reliable quantification of Arctic hydroclimate change difficult, especially in a long-term context. To understand Arctic hydroclimate and its variability prior to the instrumental record, climate proxy records are needed. The purpose of this review is to summarise the current understanding of Arctic hydroclimate during the past 2000 years. First, the paper reviews the main natural archives and proxies used to infer past hydroclimate variations in this remote region and outlines the difficulty of disentangling the moisture from the temperature signal in these records. Second, a comparison of two sets of hydroclimate records covering the Common Era from two data-rich regions, North America and Fennoscandia, reveals inter- and intra-regional differences. Third, building on earlier work, this paper shows the potential for providing a high-resolution hydroclimate reconstruction for the Arctic and a comparison with last-millennium simulations from fully coupled climate models. In general, hydroclimate proxies and simulations indicate that the Medieval Climate Anomaly tends to have been wetter than the Little Ice Age (LIA), but there are large regional differences. However, the regional coverage of the proxy data is inadequate, with distinct data gaps in most of Eurasia and parts of North America, making robust assessments for the whole Arctic impossible at present. To fully assess pan-Arctic hydroclimate variability for the last 2 millennia, additional proxy records are required.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations85
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate of the pastSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207