MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901562893 · doi:10.1029/2018gl080221

Decadal Variation in IOD Predictability During 1881–2016

2018· article· en· W2901562893 on OpenAlexafffund
Xunshu Song, Youmin Tang, Dake Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaMet Office
KeywordsPredictabilityClimatologyIndian Ocean DipoleEl Niño Southern OscillationHindcastBorealVariation (astronomy)Environmental scienceGeologyMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, a long‐term retrospective hindcast experiment is performed for the period from 1881 to 2016 with respect to tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans using a newly developed tropical intermediate coupled model. We focus on the predictability of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) mode, especially its decadal variation. There is a considerable decadal variation in IOD predictability, with high skill after the 1980s and low skill in 1940–1960. This decadal variation is significant when the prediction target is observed in the boreal autumn and winter months. Further diagnostic analysis revealed that this decadal variation was primarily due to the decadal variation in the El Nino and Southern Oscillation (ENSO)‐IOD relation that characterized the ENSO‐induced precursor processes, strengthening the predictable IOD signal. Unlike the ENSO predictability that is substantially related to the ENSO signal, the IOD predictability is related to the ENSO‐induced signal rather than the total IOD signal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→