MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794245781 · doi:10.5194/gmd-11-1033-2018

The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 – Part 1: Overview and over-arching analysis plan

2018· article· en· W2794245781 on OpenAlexaff
Masa Kageyama, Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Alan M. Haywood, Johann Jungclaus, Bette L. Otto‐Bliesner, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Ayako Abe‐Ouchi, Samuel Albani, Patrick J. Bartlein, Chris Brierley, Michel Crucifix, Aisling M. Dolan, L. Fernández-Donado, Hubertus Fischer, Peter O. Hopcroft, Ruza Ivanovic, Fabrice Lambert, Daniel J. Lunt, N. M. Mahowald, W. R. Peltier, Steven J. Phipps, Didier M. Roche, Gavin A. Schmidt, Lev Tarasov, Paul J. Valdes, Qiong Zhang, Tianjun Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Toronto
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheNatural Environment Research CouncilEuropean CommissionAustralian Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsCoupled model intercomparison projectClimatologyInterglacialPaleoclimatologyClimate changeClimate modelClimate systemEnvironmental scienceGlacial periodClimate sensitivityClimate stateGeologyMeteorologyGeographyGlobal warmingEffects of global warmingPaleontologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper is the first of a series of four GMD papers on the PMIP4-CMIP6 experiments. Part 2 (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2017) gives details about the two PMIP4-CMIP6 interglacial experiments, Part 3 (Jungclaus et al., 2017) about the last millennium experiment, and Part 4 (Kageyama et al., 2017) about the Last Glacial Maximum experiment. The mid-Pliocene Warm Period experiment is part of the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) – Phase 2, detailed in Haywood et al. (2016).The goal of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) is to understand the response of the climate system to different climate forcings for documented climatic states very different from the present and historical climates. Through comparison with observations of the environmental impact of these climate changes, or with climate reconstructions based on physical, chemical, or biological records, PMIP also addresses the issue of how well state-of-the-art numerical models simulate climate change. Climate models are usually developed using the present and historical climates as references, but climate projections show that future climates will lie well outside these conditions. Palaeoclimates very different from these reference states therefore provide stringent tests for state-of-the-art models and a way to assess whether their sensitivity to forcings is compatible with palaeoclimatic evidence. Simulations of five different periods have been designed to address the objectives of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6): the millennium prior to the industrial epoch (CMIP6 name: past1000); the mid-Holocene, 6000 years ago (midHolocene); the Last Glacial Maximum, 21 000 years ago (lgm); the Last Interglacial, 127 000 years ago (lig127k); and the mid-Pliocene Warm Period, 3.2 million years ago (midPliocene-eoi400). These climatic periods are well documented by palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental records, with climate and environmental changes relevant for the study and projection of future climate changes. This paper describes the motivation for the choice of these periods and the design of the numerical experiments and database requests, with a focus on their novel features compared to the experiments performed in previous phases of PMIP and CMIP. It also outlines the analysis plan that takes advantage of the comparisons of the results across periods and across CMIP6 in collaboration with other MIPs.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.010

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations352
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207