MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285706149 · doi:10.5194/gmd-2019-373

Evaluation of the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Modelversion 2.10 (UVic ESCM 2.10)

2020· preprint· en· W4285706149 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadine Mengis, David P. Keller, Andrew H. MacDougall, Michael Eby, Nesha Wright, Katrin J. Meißner, Andreas Oschlies, Andreas Schmittner, H. Damon Matthews, Kirsten Zickfeld

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityConcordia UniversityUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClimate modelCoupled model intercomparison projectEarth system scienceEnvironmental scienceClimatologyAlkalinityMeteorologyClimate changeComputer scienceGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The University of Victoria Earth system climate model of intermediate complexity has been a useful tool in recent assessments of long-term climate changes including paleo-climate modelling. Since the last official release of the UVic ESCM 2.9, and the two official updates during the last decade, a lot of model development has taken place in multiple groups. The new version 2.10 of the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM), to be used in the 6th phase of the coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP6), presented here combines and brings together multiple model developments and new components that have taken place since the last official release of the model. To set the foundation of its use, we here describe the UVic ESCM 2.10 and evaluate results from transient historical simulations against observational data. We find that the UVic ESCM 2.10 is capable of reproducing well changes in historical temperature and carbon fluxes, as well as the spatial distribution of many ocean tracers, including temperature, salinity, phosphate and nitrate. This is connected to a good representation of ocean physical properties. For the moment, there remain biases in ocean alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon, which will be addressed in the next updates to the model.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→