MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313827600 · doi:10.3390/rs15020367

Spatiotemporal Distribution of CO in the UTLS Region in the Asian Summer Monsoon Season: Analysis of MLS Observations and CMIP6 Simulations

2023· article· en· W4313827600 on OpenAlexaff
Ziling Liang, Fangrui Zhu, Tian Liang, Fuhai Luo, Jiali Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersScience and Technology Program of Gansu ProvinceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsClimatologyEnvironmental scienceStratosphereAnticycloneTroposphereGeopotential heightMonsoonClimate modelAtmospheric sciencesCoupled model intercomparison projectMeteorologyPrecipitationClimate changeGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, CO is used as a tracer to evaluate the chemical field related to the Asian summer monsoon anticyclone (ASMA) in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) region simulated by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate models from a multi-spatiotemporal perspective. The results show that the simulations of the six selected CMIP6 global climate models are well correlated with the MLS observations, while each model has its own advantages and disadvantages in the simulation of the ASMA and related chemical and geopotential height fields. Compared with MLS data, all six CMIP6 models can reasonably simulate the high CO values and the corresponding anticyclone, although certain biases exist in the simulations. Each model output has certain degrees of deviation in the simulation of the ASMA center position. In terms of time series, the six CMIP6 global models all exhibit an interannual variation CO mixing ratio over the ASM region while the interannual variation features are different from that in MLS. In general, it is impossible to identify a single determined model that can well reproduce the observations. In future work to assess the development trend and location of the ASMA, simulations of CESM2-WACCM and GFDL-ESM4 might be used due to their better performance than other models.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207