MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation of land-atmosphere processes of the Polar WRF in the summertime Arctic tundra

2020· article· en· W3089422061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeongwon Kim, Junhong Lee, Je‐Woo Hong, Jinkyu Hong, Ja‐Ho Koo, Joo‐Hong Kim, Juyeol Yun, Sungjin Nam, Ji Young Jung, Taejin Choi, Bang Yong Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundraArcticWeather Research and Forecasting ModelEnvironmental scienceClimatologyThe arcticAtmosphere (unit)Atmospheric sciencesBayClimate modelPolarClimate changeMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arctic tundra is changing rapidly under the influence of global warming and it is important to know its impact on local and regional climate. Polar Weather Research and Forecasting (PWRF) model is a regional climate model optimized for the polar region and it is a useful tool for studying the Arctic tundra in high resolution. In this study, we evaluate the performance of the PWRF model over the Arctic tundra on clear summer days, when the transition is taking place the most, based on the surface energy fluxes and PBL observations in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, Canada. The PWRF simulates a drier and warmer environment in PBL than the observations. Our analysis shows that it is due to the surface energy imbalance in the model caused by the uncertainties in prescribed initial input data and physical parameters rather than structural flaws in the model physics. The performance of the PWRF model over the Arctic tundra is improved when those values are modified based on the observation data.

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)0.001
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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→