MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982571033 · doi:10.1002/qj.3690

The equatorial stratospheric semiannual oscillation and time‐mean winds in QBOi models

2019· article· en· W2982571033 on OpenAlexaff
Anne K. Smith, Laura Holt, Rolando R. García, James Anstey, Federico Serva, Neal Butchart, Scott Osprey, Andrew C. Bushell, Yoshio Kawatani, Young‐Ha Kim, François Lott, Peter Braesicke, Chiara Cagnazzo, Chih‐Chieh Chen, Hye‐Yeong Chun, Lesley J. Gray, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Hiroaki Naoe, Jadwiga H. Richter, Stefan Versick, Verena Schenzinger, Shingo Watanabe, Kohei Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsStratopauseStratosphereQuasi-biennial oscillationClimatologyForcing (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesOscillation (cell signaling)MesosphereClimate modelKelvin waveGravity waveAmplitudeEnvironmental scienceGeologyGravitational wavePhysicsClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation initiative (QBOi) is a model intercomparison programme that specifically targets simulation of the QBO in current global climate models. Eleven of the models or model versions that participated in a QBOi intercomparison study have upper boundaries in or above the mesosphere and therefore simulate the region where the stratopause semiannual oscillation (SAO) is the dominant mode of variability of zonal winds in the tropical upper stratosphere. Comparisons of the SAO simulations in these models are presented here. These show that the model simulations of the amplitudes and phases of the SAO in zonal‐mean zonal wind near the stratopause agree well with the information derived from available observations. However, most of the models simulate time‐average zonal winds that are more westward than determined from observations, in some cases by several tens of m·s–1. Validation of wave activity in the models is hampered by the limited observations of tropical waves in the upper stratosphere but suggests a deficit of eastward forcing either by large‐scale waves, such as Kelvin waves, or by gravity waves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations54
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207