MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034650521 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2020.1744510

Comparative Analysis of Cold Events Over Central and Eastern China Associated with Arctic Warming in Early 2008 and 2016

2020· article· en· W3034650521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei Song, Yuefeng Li, Zhiwei Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSiberian HighClimatologyArctic oscillationEnvironmental scienceArcticAtmospheric circulationWesterliesGlobal warmingExtreme ColdAtmospheric sciencesClimate changeEast AsiaChinaOceanographyGeologyGeographyNorthern Hemisphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the possible reasons for the cold events over central and eastern China (CEC) in early 2008 and 2016. The Arctic is dramatically warming, in particular over the Barents–Kara Seas region and notable cold events were observed over CEC although La Niña and El Niño events occurred in early 2008 and 2016, respectively. At the same time, the westerlies decelerated at middle latitudes and the Ural Mountains Blocking High and the Siberian High strengthened. Subsequent analyses indicate that the cold events and the related atmospheric circulation anomalies are closely associated with Arctic warming. Additionally, the cold (warm) phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation causes the East Asian winter monsoon (EAWM) to strengthen (weaken) and correspondingly intensify (mitigate) the cold events over CEC. In brief, the Arctic warming is superimposed on La Niña or El Niño events by thermal and dynamic processes, which impact the relevant atmospheric circulation and EAWM and then induce the cold events over CEC in early 2008 and 2016 although their intensity and coverage are also different to some extent.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207