MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405107167 · doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2024.103404

Baseline matters: Challenges and implications of different marine heatwave baselines

2024· article· en· W4405107167 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress In Oceanography · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNOAA ResearchAustralian Research CouncilNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationClimate ExtremesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNatural Environment Research CouncilUK Research and InnovationU.S. Department of CommerceMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentEuropean Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive AgencyUniversity of CanterburyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsBaseline (sea)OceanographyEnvironmental scienceClimatologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Marine Heatwaves (MHW) can be defined relative to different baselines. • The baselines determine whether long term warming is included or excluded. • Different baselines convey different levels of changing risk for marine species. • The choice of baseline should be carefully considered to best fit the application. Marine heatwaves (MHWs), prolonged periods of unusually high ocean temperatures, significantly impact global ecosystems. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the definition of these extreme events, which is crucial for effective research and communication among marine scientists, decision-makers, and the broader public. Fundamental to all MHW analyses is a clearly defined background oceanic climate – i.e., a temperature ‘baseline’ against which the MHW is defined. While a single approach to implementing a baseline may not be suitable for all MHW research applications, the choice of a baseline for analysing MHWs must be intentional as it affects research outcomes. This perspective examines baseline choices and discuss their implications for marine organism and ecosystem risks, and their relevance in communicating MHW characteristics and metrics to stakeholders, policymakers, and the public. In particular we analyses five different baseline approaches for computing MHW statistics, assesses their technical differences, and discusses their ecological implications. Different baselines suggest widely different trends in MHW characteristics in a warming world. This would, for example, imply differences in future risk, reflective of marine organisms with different adaptive potential, thereby affecting recommendations for management strategies. We also examine the consequences of different baseline choices on ease of implementation and communication with wider audiences. Our analyses highlight the need to clearly specify a chosen baseline in MHW studies, and to be mindful of its implications for MHW statistics, practical considerations, and interpretations concerning the adaptive capacities of marine organisms, ecosystems and human systems. The challenges and implications of different MHW baselines highlighted here have similar relevance in research and communication for other branches of climate extremes.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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