Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional climate models are increasingly used to add small-scale features that are not present in their lateral boundary conditions (LBC). It is well known that the limited area over which a model is integrated must be large enough to allow the full development of small-scale features. On the other hand, integrations on very large domains have shown important departures from the driving data, unless large scale nudging is applied. The issue of domain size is studied here by using the “perfect model” approach. This method consists first of generating a high-resolution climatic simulation, nicknamed big brother (BB), over a large domain of integration. The next step is to degrade this dataset with a low-pass filter emulating the usual coarse-resolution LBC. The filtered nesting data (FBB) are hence used to drive a set of four simulations (LBs for Little Brothers), with the same model, but on progressively smaller domain sizes. The LB statistics for a climate sample of four winter months are compared with BB over a common region. The time average (stationary) and transient-eddy standard deviation patterns of the LB atmospheric fields generally improve in terms of spatial correlation with the reference (BB) when domain gets smaller. The extraction of the small-scale features by using a spectral filter allows detecting important underestimations of the transient-eddy variability in the vicinity of the inflow boundary, which can penalize the use of small domains (less than 100 × 100 grid points). The permanent “spatial spin-up” corresponds to the characteristic distance that the large-scale flow needs to travel before developing small-scale features. The spin-up distance tends to grow in size at higher levels in the atmosphere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".