Quality control for community-based sea-ice model development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new collaborative organization for sea-ice model development, the CICE Consortium, has devised quality control procedures to maintain the integrity of its numerical codes' physical representations, enabling broad participation from the scientific community in the Consortium's open software development environment. Using output from five coupled and uncoupled configurations of the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model, CICE, we formulate quality control methods that exploit common statistical properties of sea-ice thickness, and test for significant changes in model results in a computationally efficient manner. New additions and changes to CICE are graded into four categories, ranging from bit-for-bit amendments to significant, answer-changing upgrades. These modifications are assessed using criteria that account for the high level of autocorrelation in sea-ice time series, along with a quadratic skill metric that searches for hemispheric changes in model answers across an array of different CICE configurations. These metrics also provide objective guidance for assessing new physical representations and code functionality.This article is part of the theme issue 'Modelling of sea-ice phenomena'.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".