MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3058227715 · doi:10.1007/s40641-020-00160-0

Tracking Improvement in Simulated Marine Biogeochemistry Between CMIP5 and CMIP6

2020· review· en· W3058227715 on OpenAlexaff
Roland Séférian, Sarah Berthet, Andrew Yool, Julien Palmiéri, Laurent Bopp, Alessandro Tagliabue, Lester Kwiatkowski, Olivier Aumont, James R. Christian, John P. Dunne, Marion Gehlen, Tatiana Ilyina, Jasmin G. John, Hongmei Li, Matthew C. Long, Jessica Y. Luo, Hideyuki Nakano, Anastasia Romanou, Jörg Schwinger, Charles A. Stock, Yeray Santana‐Falcón, Yohei Takano, Jerry Tjiputra, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Tongwen Wu, Fanghua Wu, A. Yamamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Climate Change Reports · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCenter for Neuroscience and Regenerative MedicineAgence Nationale de la RechercheNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBiogeochemistryEarth system scienceBiogeochemical cycleCoupled model intercomparison projectEnvironmental scienceOceanographyCurrent (fluid)Climate modelEarth scienceClimate changeGeologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of Review: The changes or updates in ocean biogeochemistry component have been mapped between CMIP5 and CMIP6 model versions, and an assessment made of how far these have led to improvements in the simulated mean state of marine biogeochemical models within the current generation of Earth system models (ESMs). Recent Findings: The representation of marine biogeochemistry has progressed within the current generation of Earth system models. However, it remains difficult to identify which model updates are responsible for a given improvement. In addition, the full potential of marine biogeochemistry in terms of Earth system interactions and climate feedback remains poorly examined in the current generation of Earth system models. Summary: Increasing availability of ocean biogeochemical data, as well as an improved understanding of the underlying processes, allows advances in the marine biogeochemical components of the current generation of ESMs. The present study scrutinizes the extent to which marine biogeochemistry components of ESMs have progressed between the 5th and the 6th phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations436
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Climate Change ReportsSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207