A 5˚C Arctic in a 2°C World. Challenges and recommendations for immediate action from the July 21-22, 2016 Workshop: Briefing Paper for \nArctic Science Ministerial, September 20, 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Columbia Climate Center, in partnership with World Wildlife Fund, Woods Hole Research Center, and Arctic 21, held a workshop titled A 5˚C Arctic in a 2˚C World on July 20 and 21, 2016. \nThe workshop was co-sponsored by the International Arctic Research Center (University of Alaska Fairbanks), the Arctic Institute of North America (Canada), the MEOPAR Network (Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction, and Response), and the Future Ocean Excellence Cluster. \nThe goal of the workshop was to advance thinking on the science and policy implications of the \ntemperature change in the context of the 1.5 to <2˚C warming expected for the globe, as discussed during the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Paris in 2015. For the Arctic, such an increase means an anticipated increase of roughly 3.5 to 5˚C. An international group of 41 experts shared perspectives on the regional and global impacts of an up to +5˚C Arctic, examined the feasibility of actively lowering Arctic temperatures, and considered realistic timescales associated with such interventions. \nThe group also discussed the science and the political and governance actions required for \nalternative Arctic futures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.013 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".