Report of the Sixth Session of the JSC/CLIVAR Working Group on Coupled Modelling, Victoria, Canada, 7-10 October 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WGCM notes that it would be very useful if a set of indices were developed to document important modes of variability in the coupled system.Model results could then be compared using these indices.This would provide a simple, clean way of evaluating model performance.(A.Villwock to JSC, CLIVAR SSG for approval) WGCM felt that the Modelling Intercomparison Projects (MIPS) should in time be more integrated towards an Earth System Modelling umbrella.The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) could serve as the overarching MIP.The group encourages the display of the accomplishments of the MIP's in the newsletters of the various programmes.(A.Villwock to JSC) Idealized Model ExperimentsA letter of invitation for participation will be send out soon.(B.McAvaney). Data ManagementWGCM to ask the JSC to set up and ad-hoc task team on data management with representatives of all WCRP projects to develop a comprehensive data management strategy for WCRP (B.McAvaney and PCMDI to develop 'white paper' for JSC). C20C ProjectSince this activity is performed with atmosphere-only AMIP type runs, WGCM felt that this activity would be better placed under the scope of AMIP.Nevertheless, a coordination of the forcing with the ongoing CMIP activity on (coupled) C20C runs would be useful.(J.Mitchell to report to H. Cattle). Relationship to C4MIPWGCM regards the C4MIP as an activity that could be well placed under the expanded scope of CMIP.This issue should be discussed with GAIM, then be brought to the JSC for endorsement.(WGCM to discuss with GAIM)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".