MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243690639 · doi:10.1002/asl.360

Corrigendum

2011· erratum· en· W4243690639 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric Science Letters · 2011
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetCDFSeries (stratigraphy)Computer scienceDocumentationTime seriesStatisticsAlgorithmMathematicsGeologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equation (16) is missing a transpose sign. The correct version reads Equations (13) and (14) incorrectly omit the cross-panel correlation terms and describe variance terms as applying to the observations rather than the residuals. The correct versions are In both these cases the error was in the printed equations, whereas the correct version was used for computations, so no changes to the results are needed. We found that data obtained from PCMDI for the GISS-ER model runs contained an error. The time series of the 20C3M period were concatenated to their corresponding A1B data based on each model's run number. For example, run 3 for the 20C3M was concatenated with run 3 for A1B. This is incorrect. The netCDf meta data as well as GISS-ER documentation (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/GISS-E.htm) shows that 20c3m run 3 initialized a1b run 1, 20c3m run 6 initialized a1b run 2, 20c3m run 7 initialized a1b run 3, 20c3m run 8 initialized a1b run 4 and 20c3m run 9 initialized a1b run 5. The 20C3M and A1B time series were re-concatenated in the proper order. We verified with NASA-GISS that our understanding of how runs were numbered was correct. Before re-computing our results we obtained updated versions of the observational series, all of which were revised since the calculations for MMH10 were completed. The revisions to the GISS-ER data raised its LT and MT trends slightly and the revisions to observational series reduced the trends in all cases. These changes affected some of our test scores, each time in the direction of confirming, rather than overturning, our original conclusions and inferences. Revised versions of Tables I–III are provided herein. The changes affect five inferences. (1) The p-value of the combined MSU trend for 1979–2009 computed using the panel regression method rose from 0.042 to 0.052, which, technically speaking, implies a fall from significance to marginal significance. (2) The VF () score for the HadAT 1979–2009 balloon series trend fell from 55.16 to 39.47, which is now below the 95% critical value, implying a drop in the LT trend to marginal significance. (3) The VF () score for the mean observed 1979–2009 MT trend fell from 23.77 to 13.62, implying a drop from marginal significance to insignificance. (4) The VF () score for the RICH 1979–2009 balloon series trend fell from 41.43 to 4.47, implying a drop from marginal significance to insignificance (the trend term itself fell from 0.072 to 0.025 °C/decade.) (5) The p-value on the test score on the panel regression-based test of a difference between the RSS satellite series and climate models in the LT layer over 1979–2009 fell from 0.059 to 0.032, indicating a change to significance. Thus, for the 1979–2009 interval, all observational trends at both the LT and MT tropical layers are now significantly below the average model trend. We thank H. McCullough and J. Christy for their assistance.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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