Reply to Comment by Michael K. Tippett on “On the Relationship Between Probabilistic and Deterministic Skills in Dynamical Seasonal Climate Prediction”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tippett (2019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029345 ) provides an insightful comment on the theoretical consideration part of Yang et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028002 ), which studied the relationship between probabilistic and deterministic skills in dynamical seasonal climate prediction. The author connects the theoretical finding of Yang et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028002 ) with some previous studies on this topic and further provide a simple‐form approximation to the derived theoretical relation in Yang et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028002 ). However, the author also indicates the difference between the considerations in Yang et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028002 ) and the previous studies. In this reply, we present a detailed explanation to the readers of the difference between these considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".