MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021288641 · doi:10.1175/bams-d-20-0073.1

The Future of Sea Ice Modeling: Where Do We Go from Here?

2020· article· en· W3021288641 on OpenAlexaff
Ed Blockley, Martin Vancoppenolle, Elizabeth Hunke, Cecilia M. Bitz, D. L. Feltham, Jean‐François Lemieux, Martin Lösch, Éric Maisonnave, Dirk Notz, Pierre Rampal, Steffen Tietsche, Bruno Tremblay, Adrian K. Turner, François Massonnet, Einar Ólason, Andrew Roberts, Yevgeny Aksenov, Thierry Fichefet, Gilles Garric, Doroteaciro Iovino, Gurvan Madec, Clément Rousset, David Salas y Mélia, David Schröeder

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGDG EnvironnementEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of EnergyNatural Environment Research CouncilBiological and Environmental ResearchEuropean CommissionSight Research UK
KeywordsSea iceEnvironmental scienceOceanographyClimatologyMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuum sea ice models have been applied close to the presumed limits of their validity for many years, yet they remain compatible with current observations. The resolution requirements for sea ice models varies considerably depending on the application (e.g., large ensembles, paleoclimate simulations, short-range forecasting), and therefore continuum models will likely remain useful for many years to come. Meanwhile, it is highly desirable to explore the potential of DEMs. These models are expected to be more physically faithful at the highest resolutions envisioned for sea ice in ESMs, provided they incorporate all the required processes. DEMs may also prove more efficient for some new computer architectures. Such perspectives highlight the need for the sea ice modeling community to have a clear and consistent vision of the future evolution of HPC systems. Sea ice models are used for many different purposes and therefore benefit from modularity, which allows the activation or exclusion of parameterizations and code features. Thus, users can adjust model complexity to fit their specific application. Considering limited human resources among core sea ice modeling groups, engagement of the wider community has proven a very efficient way to advance large-scale sea ice models. However, there is still scope for further integration of the wider community in model development activities. An important feature of the Laugarvatn sea ice modeling workshop was the open minded atmosphere in which very different views were exchanged. The workshop successfully brought together model developers and users of sea ice models for Earth system modeling, operational forecasting and (re)analyses. International sea ice modeling workshops such as this foster collaboration and community engagement in the field of sea ice modeling. A recommendation from this workshop is that the exercise should be repeated every 2-3 years to maintain community engagement, exchange cutting-edge ideas, and reinforce collaborative momentum. © 2020 American Meteorological Society.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.038
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations65
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207