MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W113639307 · doi:10.2166/nh.2005.0024

Distribution of snow cover over Northern Eurasia

2005· article· en· W113639307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Л.М. Китаев, Eirik J. Førland, V. Razuvaev, Ole Einar Tveito, Olaf Krueger

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorthern HemisphereSnowSnow lineSnow coverSnow fieldPhysical geographyClimatologySpatial distributionSpatial variabilityEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyMeteorologyRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on observation data the spatial variability and long-term trends of snow depth, snow water equivalent and number of days with snow coverage ≥50% for Northern Eurasia are estimated. The significance of continental snow cover variability over Northern Eurasia is illustrated by comparison with snow cover variability of the northern part of North America (Canada). The fundamental scientific problem of our investigations is revealing spatial and temporal changes of snow cover under the present climate conditions. The snow cover depends on a climate on the one hand and appreciably defines a hydrological regime on the other hand and, thus, the snow cover is a good indicator of changes in the condition of an environment. In this case the condition of the snow cover of the Northern hemisphere on an example of Northern Eurasia within the boundaries of the NIS and the northern part of North America within the boundaries of Canada is investigated. The novelty of the work, in particular, consists in the attraction to the analysis of a lot of long-term data on the snow cover of two continents. As a result the general regularity of spatial heterogeneity and the long-term variability of snow stocks were revealed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology researchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207