MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173861037 · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwab113

Understanding human influence on climate change in China

2021· article· en· W3173861037 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Sun, Xuebin Zhang, Yihui Ding, Deliang Chen, Dahe Qin, Panmao Zhai

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Science Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsClimate changeGreenhouse gasPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceChinaAttributionHuman healthClimatologyAgricultureGlobal warmingSurface air temperatureClimate systemEcosystemNatural resource economicsClimate modelFoundation (evidence)GeographyEcologyMeteorologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China's climate has been warming since the 1950s, with surface air temperature increasing at a rate higher than the global average. Changes in climate have exerted substantial impacts on water resources, agriculture, ecosystems and human health. Attributing past changes to causes provides a scientific foundation for national and international climate policies. Here, we review recent progress in attributing the observed climate changes over past decades in China. Anthropogenic forcings, dominated by greenhouse gas emissions, are the main drivers for observed increases in mean and extreme temperatures. Evidence of the effect of anthropogenic forcings on precipitation is emerging. Human influence has increased the probability of extreme heat events, and has likely changed the occurrence probabilities for some heavy precipitation events. The way a specific attribution question is posed and the conditions under which the question is addressed present persistent challenges for appropriately communicating attribution results to non-specialists.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
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

Citations194
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Science ReviewSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207