MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6955200321 · doi:10.57757/iugg23-2192

Radiative forcing pattern and its change controlled by forcing agents and environmental factors

2023· article· en· W6955200321 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiative forcingForcing (mathematics)Albedo (alchemy)Greenhouse gasAerosolRadiative transferCloud forcing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<!--!introduction!--><b></b> The radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols has characteristic distribution patterns, which influence global and regional energy budgets and lead to profound climate responses. Because of the multivariable-function nature of radiative transfer, the forcing distribution is controlled by forcing agents, as well as environmental variables. In this work, we aim to 1) determine the pattern of the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols based on accurate radiative transfer computations, and 2) to quantify the effects of both forcing agents and environmental factors on the distribution pattern based on analytical equations determined from statistical analysis. We find that the majority of the temporospatial variance of the greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing can be well explained by multivariate regression models. Based on the radiative sensitivities quantified from this approach, we then assess how the changes in the respective controlling factors lead to the changes, as well as the inter-climate model differences, in the forcing magnitude and distribution. A few interesting and important environmental effects are identified. For example, the change in surface albedo is found to strongly influence the trend in the regional aerosol forcing in the Arctic, as well as the meridional energy transport in this region.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)Same topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207