MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913575945

Flujos de detritos y aluviones históricos en la cuenca del río Blanco (32°55'-33°10' y 69°10'-69°25'), Mendoza

2013· article· es· W1913575945 on OpenAlexaff
María Solange Páez, Stella M. Moreiras, Alexander Brenning, Laura Giambiagi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericanae (AECID Library) · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La cuenca del río Blanco está sometida a un clima árido con precipitaciones medias anuales de 400 mm. Las lluvias intensas y de corta duración están concentradas en los tres meses de verano actuando frecuentemente como disparadoras de flujos de detritos y aluviones en el Cordón del Plata y generando variaciones en el caudal del río Blanco por aporte extraordinario de estos eventos. Información sobre la ocurrencia de flujos de detritos y aluviones reportados entre 1942 y 2001 en la cuenca del río Blanco fue recopilada y analizada a partir de crónicas periodísticas, datos aportados por los pobladores, registros pluviométricos de la zona y años de anomalías climáticas, tratando de establecer la precipitación mínima requerida para desestabilizar estas pendientes. Durante el período mencionado se registraron 18 flujos de detritos y aluviones, de los cuales los más importantes ocurrieron en 1960, 1967, 1970 y 1982; y produciéndose dos eventos en los años 1954, 1967, 1982 y 1993, sin embargo la intensidad de los eventos de flujos de detritos y aluviones parece incrementarse durante los años de anomalías climáticas correspondientes a la fase cálida del fenómeno ENOS "El Niño".

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 score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericanae (AECID Library)Same topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207