MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017049878 · doi:10.1029/2019gl086749

Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6

2020· article· en· W3017049878 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dirk Notz

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität HamburgMax-Planck-GesellschaftNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science FoundationHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNorges ForskningsrådCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, UK GovernmentFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSSeventh Framework ProgrammeMet OfficeU.S. Department of EnergyBiological and Environmental ResearchDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentNational Center for Atmospheric Research
KeywordsSea iceArcticClimatologyArctic ice packThe arcticEnvironmental scienceGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine CMIP6 simulations of Arctic sea‐ice area and volume. We find that CMIP6 models produce a wide spread of mean Arctic sea‐ice area, capturing the observational estimate within the multimodel ensemble spread. The CMIP6 multimodel ensemble mean provides a more realistic estimate of the sensitivity of September Arctic sea‐ice area to a given amount of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and to a given amount of global warming, compared with earlier CMIP experiments. Still, most CMIP6 models fail to simulate at the same time a plausible evolution of sea‐ice area and of global mean surface temperature. In the vast majority of the available CMIP6 simulations, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (sea‐ice area <1 × 10 6 km 2 ) in September for the first time before the Year 2050 in each of the four emission scenarios SSP1‐1.9, SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, and SSP5‐8.5 examined here.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations725
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207