MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409226417 · doi:10.1071/hr24027

Impacts of the CSIRO climate modelling program

2025· article· en· W4409226417 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Records of Australian Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorical recordObituaryMemoirEnvironmental scienceHistoryGeographyMeteorologyArchaeologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of climate modelling groups in the development of international agreements that aim to assess future climatic risks and limit greenhouse gas concentrations is not well recognised. It is arguable that no such agreements would have been possible without carefully designed and managed research programs that provided the data upon which these risks and thus, decisions were made. Many groups contributed data that underpinned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report published in 2014 that led to the ground-breaking Paris Agreement. Australia’s contribution included the results of a CSIRO climate model which had its genesis in a relatively simple weather forecast model two decades previously. Two people were mainly responsible for the modelling program which led to this accomplishment—Barrie Hunt and Hal Gordon. A brief history of the program is described here and. Examining some basic metrics reveals some surprising impacts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.269 · 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