MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4221064154 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8255

Status and prospects for the neXtSIM-F CMEMS operational forecast

2022· preprint· en· W4221064154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy Williams, Anton Korosov, Einar Ólason, Laurent Bertino

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmpereChemistryInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyPhysicsThermodynamicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neXtSIM-F operational forecast was upgraded in December 2021, with the following developments: improvements to the rheology, with the neXtSIM model now running the latest version of the Brittle Bingham-Maxwell rheology (BBM). The previous version was running a preliminary version of the BBM rheology. The model domain was extended to include the Labrador Sea, Hudson and Baffin Bay. Better tuning of dynamic (eg of basal stress parameters for the fast ice off the coast of the eastern Arctic) and thermodynamic parameters. The upgrade resulted in good improvements to the ice thickness and extent, although drift developed a slight slow bias. However the bias is of the order of the observation error (1-1.25km/day). Planned developments for the next 3 years include: assimilation of ice thickness data assimilation of ice extent from NIC ice charts (National Ice Center, USA) instead of from passive microwave (OSISAF). increased resolution, to go from about 7.5km to about 3.75km a multi-year reanalysis to be updated every month

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.011

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→