MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W188626011

Cloud-to-Ground Lightning in Canada: 1999 - 2008

2010· article· en· W188626011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bohdan Kochtubajda, William R. Burrows

Bibliographic record

VenueEGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)GeographyMeteorologyLightning detectionLightning strikePower (physics)Thunderstorm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning is a major cause of severe weather-related fatalities and injuries (Mills et al. 2009; Curran et al. 2000), property and infrastructure damage (Holle et al. 1996; Mills et al., 2008), forest fires (Stocks et al., 2002), and interruptions in or damage to electric power transmission and distribution systems (Cummins et al. 1998a). Several shortduration, limited-area studies have previously been conducted in Canada using provincial, territorial or private-sector lightning detection networks. Shortly after the Canadian Lightning Detection Network (CLDN) was established in 1998, the first national picture of lightning activity for the period 1989-1999 appeared in a Canadian Geographic article (Lanken, 2000). Lightning hotspots were shown to occur over the Prairie Provinces and southern Ontario. The first analysis of lightning characteristics across Canada was published by Burrows et al. (2002). Although only three years’ data were available for that study, a complex pattern emerged, showing strong regional, diurnal and seasonal features. This paper presents an updated climatology of cloud-ground lightning over Canada for 1999-2008 at a resolution of 20 km as detected by the CLDN. We highlight some of the main findings for flash density, occurrence, polarity, multiplicity, and first-stroke peak current. Due to the length of the material we cannot show the entire analysis. This is the subject of two papers in the peer review process at the time of this writing. For the sake of brevity we do not have a separate section summarizing conclusions here. 2. DATA and ANALYSIS

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)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEGU General Assembly Conference AbstractsSame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207