MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997172466 · doi:10.3137/ao.400208

Summer convection and lightning over the Mackenzie river basin and their Impacts during 1994 and 1995

2002· article· en· W1997172466 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bohdan Kochtubajda, Ronald E. Stewart, John R. Gyakum, Mike Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLightning (connector)StormLightning strikeStructural basinEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyClimatologyLightning detectionThunderstormAtmospheric sciencesGeologyGeographyGeomorphologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lightning activity over the Mackenzie basin has been examined for the summers of 1994 and 1995. In recent years, the lightning network operating in the Northwest Territories has detected an average of 118 K strikes per season. Positive lightning strikes (defined as lightning discharges lowering positive charge to the earth) typically comprise 12% of the total. The lightning activity during 1994 was approximately 20% below normal, while in 1995, it was 53% below normal. However, the fraction of positive lightning strikes was 25.6% during 1995. The lightning was linked to synoptic conditions favouring severe storm development, especially those tied to the diurnal cycle. As a consequence of the lightning, as well as the very dry surface conditions, record forest areas were burned. In the Northwest Territories alone, forest fires burned 3 Mha in 1994 and 2.8 Mha in 1995.

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)0.000
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 score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207