MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499471208 · doi:10.1029/2009gl037242

Frequency of cool summers in interior North America over the past three centuries

2009· article· en· W1499471208 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin P. Girardin, Jacques Tardif, Brock Epp, France Conciatori

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegResearch ManitobaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Winnipeg
KeywordsMars Exploration ProgramSecular variationDendrochronologyEnvironmental sciencePinus <genus>Term (time)ClimatologyPhysical geographyGeologyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyArchaeologyPhysicsGeophysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An innovative technique utilizes a tree‐ring marker to investigate long‐term changes in the frequency of cool summers in Interior North America (INA), a region that currently suffers important gaps in knowledge concerning annual to secular temperature changes. Using multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), we established a threshold for the formation of climatically‐induced light rings recorded in Pinus banksiana trees from INA. Then, we used the MARS model to reconstruct negative departures in summer maximum temperatures (April–September) from 1717 to 2007. The estimates explain 45% of the variance in instrumental temperature data. The reconstruction indicates the presence of significant multidecadal changes in the frequency of cool summers, with maximums in 1780, 1900 and 1960 and minimums in 1740, 1860, 1920 and 2000. No evidence of secular changes was found.

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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207