MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159693898 · doi:10.1029/2021gl092509

Significant Contribution of Severe Ozone Loss to the Siberian‐Arctic Surface Warming in Spring 2020

2021· article· en· W3159693898 on OpenAlexafffund
Yongyun Hu, Yi Huang, Chuanfeng Zhao, Fei Xie, Yikun Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAlbedo (alchemy)ClimatologyOzoneAtmospheric sciencesOzone depletionArcticStratosphereIce-albedo feedbackArctic oscillationGlobal warmingOzone layerArctic geoengineeringArctic ice packClimate changeSea iceNorthern HemisphereGeologyMeteorologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Severe ozone loss and significant surface warming anomalies in the Siberian Arctic were observed in spring 2020. Here, we show that the anomalous surface warming was likely related to the ozone loss. The dramatic Arctic ozone loss in March was shifted to Siberia in April and May, which largely cools the lower stratosphere and leads to an increase of high clouds by modifying the static stability in the upper troposphere. This further results in an increase of longwave radiation at surface which likely contributes to surface warming. Multiple linear regression demonstrates that ozone loss contributes most of the surface warming in April, while the Arctic Oscillation and ice‐albedo feedback play a minor role. In May, both ozone loss and ice‐albedo feedback contribute to the surface warming. These results support that surface warming in the Siberian Arctic could occur in April and May when severe ozone loss occurs in March.

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)0.001
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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207