MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324344293 · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02059-5

Newly reconstructed Arctic surface air temperatures for 1979–2021 with deep learning method

2023· article· en· W4324344293 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ziqi Ma, Jianbin Huang, Xiangdong Zhang, Yong Luo, Minghu Ding, Jun Wen, Weixin Jin, Yifu Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Centers for Environmental InformationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNorges ForskningsrådAlberta Agricultural Research InstituteU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsArcticThe arcticEnvironmental scienceSurface air temperatureOceanographyGeologyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A precise Arctic surface air temperature (SAT) dataset, that is regularly updated, has more complete spatial and temporal coverage, and is based on instrumental observations, is critically important for timely monitoring and improving understanding of the rapid change in the Arctic climate. In this study, a new monthly gridded Arctic SAT dataset dated back to 1979 was reconstructed with a deep learning method by combining surface air temperatures from multiple data sources. The source data include the observations from land station of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network), ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set) over the oceans, drifting ice station of Russian NP (North Pole), and buoys of IABP (International Arctic Buoy Programme). The last two are crucial for improving the representation of the in-situ observed temperatures within the Arctic. The newly reconstructed dataset includes monthly Arctic SAT beginning in 1979 and daily Arctic SAT beginning in 2011. This dataset would represent a new improvement in developing observational temperature datasets and can be used for a variety of applications.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207