MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293802061 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10512271.1

Cold Weather Teleconnections from Future Arctic Sea Ice Loss and Ocean Warming

2022· preprint· en· W4293802061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y. T. Eunice Lo, Dann Mitchell, P.A. Watson, James A. Screen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsPreprintTeleconnectionArcticThe arcticMeteorologyWorld Wide WebOceanographyComputer scienceGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid Arctic warming and decline in sea ice have been observed in recent decades. These trends will likely continue, potentially changing winter extremes elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We use coordinated Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP) experiments to decompose the Northern Hemisphere winter cold temperature responses to future Arctic sea-ice loss and sea surface temperature (SST) change, separately, at 2C global mean warming. Cold extremes (20-year return period) will generally become warmer at high- and mid-latitudes due to Arctic sea-ice loss, with the largest warming in East Canada. SST change will warm cold extremes everywhere, overwhelming simulated sea ice-induced cooling responses in, e.g., southwestern United States. In general, the SST-induced changes dominate over sea ice-induced changes, with exceptions in East Canada, Nunavut (Canada) and North Pacific Russia. Our results suggest that if climate models do not adequately capture the sea-ice and SST components, cold extremes will be biased.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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→