MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408345561 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt8035

Confronting Earth System Model trends with observations

2025· review· en· W4408345561 on OpenAlexaff
Isla R. Simpson, Tiffany A. Shaw, Paulo Ceppi, Amy Clement, Erich Fischer, Kevin M. Grise, Angeline G. Pendergrass, James A. Screen, Robert C. J. Wills, Tim Woollings, Russell Blackport, Joonsuk M. Kang, Stephen Po–Chedley

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsEarth system scienceClimate changeClimate modelClimate systemClimate scienceClimatologyPosition (finance)Computer scienceData scienceEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyEnvironmental resource managementGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthropogenically forced climate change signals are emerging from the noise of internal variability in observations, and the impacts on society are growing. For decades, Climate or Earth System Models have been predicting how these climate change signals will unfold. While challenges remain, given the growing forced trends and the lengthening observational record, the climate science community is now in a position to confront the signals, as represented by historical trends, in models with observations. This review covers the state of the science on the ability of models to represent historical trends in the climate system. It also outlines robust procedures that should be used when comparing modeled and observed trends and how to move beyond quantification into understanding. Finally, this review discusses cutting-edge methods for identifying sources of discrepancies and the importance of future confrontations.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207