MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623018179 · doi:10.5194/gmd-10-4477-2017

DCMIP2016: a review of non-hydrostatic dynamical core design and intercomparison of participating models

2017· review· en· W2623018179 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Naval Research LaboratoryOffice of Naval ResearchOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationUniversity of California, DavisU.S. Department of EnergyDivision of Atmospheric and Geospace SciencesUniversity of Colorado BoulderNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDynamical systems theoryDiscretizationHydrostatic equilibriumCore modelGridCore (optical fiber)Atmospheric modelComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Atmosphere (unit)Dynamical system (definition)Statistical physicsPrimitive equationsApplied mathematicsAerospace engineeringMeteorologyPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryEngineeringDifferential equationSimultaneous equations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Atmospheric dynamical cores are a fundamental component of global atmospheric modeling systems and are responsible for capturing the dynamical behavior of the Earth's atmosphere via numerical integration of the Navier–Stokes equations. These systems have existed in one form or another for over half of a century, with the earliest discretizations having now evolved into a complex ecosystem of algorithms and computational strategies. In essence, no two dynamical cores are alike, and their individual successes suggest that no perfect model exists. To better understand modern dynamical cores, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of 11 non-hydrostatic dynamical cores, drawn from modeling centers and groups that participated in the 2016 Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP) workshop and summer school. This review includes a choice of model grid, variable placement, vertical coordinate, prognostic equations, temporal discretization, and the diffusion, stabilization, filters, and fixers employed by each system.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.040 · 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