MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410862938 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2025.2507880

Seasonal and Regional Antarctic Sea Ice Biases: A Closer Look at CMIP6

2025· article· en· W4410862938 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Serena Schroeter

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologySea iceGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antarctic sea ice is poorly reproduced by most global coupled climate models, hindering understanding of historical sea ice behaviour and its broader climate interactions. In this study, a set of satellite-based observations are compared to pre-industrial control (piControl) sea ice concentration in 60 models from the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), to identify common and disparate mean state biases. Insufficient summer sea ice is a well-known deficiency; however, it is noted here that most models also underestimate maximum winter ice extent. Delayed onset of autumnal ice advance is common, and seasonal evolution of sea ice in early autumn is strongly correlated to maximum winter ice cover, indicating that deficient autumn ice gain impedes adequate winter expansion. Nearly a third of models overshoot the austral sea ice maximum, exaggerating the existing seasonal asymmetry, while several others omit the asymmetry entirely and instead have two equal-sized seasons. Summer and autumn ice tends to be less compact than observed, though winter compactness is better captured. Regional sea ice biases are most common in the Weddell and Haakon VII seas, as well as in East Antarctica, where winter ice is widely underestimated. These key temporal and spatial deficiencies highlight potential priorities for the improvement of simulated sea ice in future model development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207