MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394678521 · doi:10.1029/2023gl106639

Model Biases in the Atmosphere‐Ocean Partitioning of Poleward Heat Transport Are Persistent Across Three CMIP Generations

2024· article· en· W4394678521 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Donohoe, Robert Fajber, Tyler Cox, Kyle C. Armour, David S. Battisti, Gerard H. Roe

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersTeachers CollegeNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAtmosphere (unit)Environmental scienceClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The observed partitioning of poleward heat transport between atmospheric and oceanic heat transports (AHT and OHT) is compared to that in coupled climate models. Model ensemble mean poleward OHT is biased low in both hemispheres, with the largest biases in the Southern Hemisphere extratropics. Poleward AHT is biased high in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in the vicinity of the peak AHT near 40°N. The significant model biases are persistent across three model generations (CMIP3, CMIP5, CMIP6) and are insensitive to the satellite radiation and atmospheric reanalyzes products used to derive observational estimates of AHT and OHT. Model biases in heat transport partitioning are consistent with biases in the spatial structure of energy input to the ocean and atmosphere. Specifically, larger than observed model evaporation in the tropics adds excess energy to the atmosphere that drives enhanced poleward AHT at the expense of weaker OHT.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→