MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530451419 · doi:10.54782/001c.132939

Current Status and Future Direction of the Oklahoma Weather Modification Program

2000· article· en· W1530451419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Weather Modification · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeather modificationLegislatureState (computer science)Environmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEnvironmental planningMeteorologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary focus of the Oklahoma Weather Modification Program is to suppress hail and augment rainfall. Initiated in the fall of 1996, the demonstration program is patterned after similar successful efforts underway in Kansas, North Dakota, Texas and Alberta, Canada. In 1997 and 1998, the statewide program incorporated an independent evaluation to measure results, although no randomized cloud seeding operations were conducted. Results of the evaluation are promising. Prompted, in part, by the need for additional resources to implement the program at the desired capacity, the State Legislature passed legistation in 1999 to create a cooperative, long-term funding mechanism between state and the Oklahoma’s insurance industry. Potential interstate cooperation with weather modification efforts in Texas and Kansas bode well for the continuation and future growth of the program.

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.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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