Cloud-to-Ground Lightning in Canada: 1999 - 2008
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it