MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408386094 · doi:10.1002/qj.4944

Rolling <scp>DICE</scp> to advance knowledge of land–atmosphere interactions

2025· article· en· W4408386094 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Best, Adrian Lock, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Éric Bazile, Isabelle Beau, Joan Cuxart, Michael Ek, Kirsten Findell, Ann M. Fridlind, A.A.M. Holtslag, Wenyan Huang, María A. Jiménez, Sanjiv Kumar, David M. Lawrence, Sergey Malyshev, Patrick Le Moigne, Michael J. Puma, R.J. Ronda, Joseph A. Santanello, Irina Sandu, Xinyong Shen, Gert‐Jan Steeneveld, Gunilla Svensson, Paul Vaillancourt, Weiguo Wang, Ayrton Zadra, Weizhong Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersGoddard Space Flight Center
KeywordsDiceAtmosphere (unit)Environmental scienceComputer scienceMeteorologyMathematicsGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Diurnal Land–Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (DICE) aims to explore the complex interactions between the land surface and atmospheric boundary layer, which are generally not well understood and difficult to isolate in models. The project involves over 10 different models, combining expertise from both land‐surface and atmospheric boundary‐layer modelling groups. A simple three‐stage methodology is designed to assess land–atmosphere feedbacks. Stage 1: the individual components are assessed in isolation, driven and evaluated against observational data; stage 2: the impact of coupling is investigated; stage 3: the sensitivity of the stand‐alone models to variations in driving data is explored. For this initial study, a 3‐day clear‐sky period in the mid‐west United States over, an assumed simple, predominantly grass surface was simulated using data from the CASES‐99 field campaign. Key conclusions from the study include: (1) the memory of vegetation state within land‐surface models needs attention; (2) the height of atmospheric forcing for land‐surface models is important, particularly for the nocturnal boundary layer, and this has implications for both observations and vertical resolution for atmospheric models; (3) land–atmosphere feedbacks reduce errors in simulated surface fluxes at the expense of the accuracy of the variables that the models are designed to simulate (e.g., temperature, humidity, and wind speed); (4) problems remain in representing the stable boundary layer in atmospheric models; (5) the mixing of temperature and humidity within the boundary layer may need to be represented separately; (6) differences in daytime profiles of heat, moisture, and momentum between models are mainly due to the way the models erode the inversion at the top of the boundary layer, rather than differences in the surface fluxes. Resultant variations in modelled boundary‐layer heights have a substantial impact on relative humidity and could partially explain variations in coupling strength between models in the Global Land–Atmosphere Coupling Experiment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2140.045

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207