MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098714356

The greening of the McGill Paleoclimate Model. Part I:

2014· article· en· W7098714356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvergreenAlbedo (alchemy)PaleoclimatologyVegetation (pathology)DeciduousClimate modelClimate changeLeaf area indexBoreal
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The formulation of a new land surface scheme (LSS) with vegetation dynamics for coupling to the McGill Paleoclimate Model (MPM) is presented. This LSS has the following notable improvements over the old version: (1) parameterization of deciduous and evergreen trees by using the model’s climatology and the output of the dynamic global vegetation model, VE-CODE (Brovkin et al. in Ecological Modelling 101:251– 261 (1997), Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(4):1139, (2002)); (2) parameterization of tree leaf budburst and leaf drop by using the model’s climatology; (3) param-eterization of the seasonal cycle of the grass leaf area index; (4) parameterization of the seasonal cycle of tree leaf area index by using the time-dependent growth of the leaves; (5) calculation of land surface albedo by using vegetation-related parameters, snow depth and the model’s climatology. The results show considerable improvement of the model’s simulation of the present-day climate as compared with that simulated in the original physically-based MPM. In particular, the strong seasonality of terrestrial vegetation and the associated land surface albedo variations are in good agreement with several satellite observations of these quantities. The application of this new version of the MPM (the ‘‘green’ ’ MPM) to Holocene millennial-scale climate changes is described in a companion paper, Part II. 1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207