MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2933645048 · doi:10.1029/2018gl081426

Decadal Variations in the Winter Beaufort High and the Stratospheric Polar Vortex

2019· article· en· W2933645048 on OpenAlexafffund
Minghong Zhang, William Perrie, Zhenxia Long

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersOffice of Energy Research and Development
KeywordsPolar vortexClimatologyAnticyclonePolarArcticNorthern HemisphereAtmospheric sciencesBaroclinityOzone depletionGeologyVortexArctic oscillationPolar nightEnvironmental scienceOceanographyStratosphereGeographyMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We show that a weakened Beaufort High in late winter is becoming more common since the late 1980s, and this weakening is related to decadal changes in Northern Hemisphere ozone depletion. During this time, the stratospheric polar vortex has experienced a decadal northeastward displacement. Such displacement is associated with the variability of the East Asia‐eastern North America dipole. A positive Asia‐eastern North America dipole leads to zonal asymmetry in the ozone depletion with maximum loss over eastern Eurasia. Positive feedback with the zonally asymmetric ozone loss contributes to increased occurrence of the northeastward displacement of the stratospheric polar vortex. The northeastward displaced polar vortex enhances baroclinicity over the Eurasian Arctic and causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of cyclones and a decrease in anticyclones over the Eurasian Arctic. Concomitantly, the Beaufort High tends to have weakened.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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