MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015567566 · doi:10.1002/joc.6590

Comparison of <scp>CMIP6</scp> and <scp>CMIP5</scp> simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon

2020· article· en· W3015567566 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Climatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsClimatologyCoupled model intercomparison projectPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceClimate modelSea surface temperatureForecast skillChinaEast Asian MonsoonMonsoonClimate changeMeteorologyGeologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We evaluate and compare the simulation of summer precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) by eight climate models from Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and the corresponding eight previous models from CMIP5. Skill metrics are calculated to assess the climatology, interannual variation and linear trends during the time period 1961–2005. The CMIP6 multimodel ensemble (MME) is more skillful than the CMIP5 MME in the spatial correlation and standard deviation ( SD) of the climatological precipitation over Eastern China. All the CMIP6 models improve the skill scores in the climatological pattern of the EASM relative to the previous models of CMIP5, which is related to their smaller sea surface temperature (SST) biases over the Northwestern Pacific Ocean. The models with a higher capability in reproducing the climatological pattern of the EASM tend to have a better skill in simulating summer precipitation over Eastern China. Most (six of eight) of the CMIP6 models have advantages over the previous CMIP5 models in reproducing the interannual anomalous rainfall pattern over Eastern China related to the EASM. Ten of the 16 models partly reproduce the weakening trend of the EASM during 1961–2005. The high‐skill models (GISS‐E2‐H, GISS‐E2‐1‐H) that simulate a clear weakening trend in the EASM also reasonably simulate the negative correlation between the EASM and the SST over Eastern Indian and the Western Pacific Oceans (EIWP). By contrast, the two models (CESM2 and CESM2‐WACCM) that simulate a positive correlation over the EIWP both produce increasing trends in the EASM indices. This indicates the importance of climate models in simulating the relationship between the EASM and the SST over the EIWP. Among the 16 models, only 2 CMIP6 models (BCC‐CSM2‐MR and GISS‐E2‐1‐H) partly reproduce the linear trend of precipitation over Eastern China, featured by the pattern of “southern flood and northern drought.”

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.280 · 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