MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1613961603 · doi:10.1029/2009gl042045

Northern Rocky Mountain streamflow records: Global warming trends, human impacts or natural variability?

2010· article· en· W1613961603 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeannine‐Marie St. Jacques, David Sauchyn, Yang Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreamflowClimatologyEnvironmental sciencePacific decadal oscillationDrynessProxy (statistics)Climate changeEl Niño Southern OscillationHydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeographyDrainage basinOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ∼60 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a major factor controlling streamflow in the northern Rocky Mountains, causing dryness during its positive phase, and wetness during its negative phase. If the PDO’s influence is not incorporated into a trend analysis of streamflows, it can produce detected declines that are actually artifacts of this low‐frequency variability. Further difficulties arise from the short length and discontinuity of most gauge records, human impacts, and residual autocorrelation. We analyze southern Alberta and environs instrumental streamflow data, using void‐filled datasets from unregulated and regulated gauges and naturalized records, and Generalized Least Squares regression to explicitly model the impacts of the PDO and other climate oscillations. We conclude that streamflows are declining at most gauges due to hydroclimatic changes (probably from global warming) and severe human impacts, which are of the same order of magnitude as the hydroclimate changes, if not greater.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations130
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207