MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038385653 · doi:10.1006/qres.2002.2343

Hydroclimatic Change in Southern Manitoba Since A.D. 1409 Inferred from Tree Rings

2002· article· en· W2038385653 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott St. George, Erik Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsManitoba HydroGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationChronologyDendrochronologyGeologyStructural basinClimatologyDrainage basinPhysical geographyGeographyGeomorphologyPaleontologyMeteorologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A record of estimated annual (prior August to current July) precipitation derived from a regional bur oak ( Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) tree-ring chronology indicates that southern Manitoba's hydroclimate has been relatively stable over the last 200 yr. Although this stability was interrupted briefly by pronounced wet intervals in the late A.D. 1820s and 1850s, hydroclimatic conditions since permanent Euro-Canadian settlement were much less variable and persistent than those prior to A.D. 1790. The reconstruction indicates that the Red River basin experienced extremely dry conditions between A.D. 1670 and 1775, with below-normal precipitation occurring approximately 2 years out of 3. Annual precipitation was estimated at more than two standard deviations below the mean during A.D. 1477, 1485, 1556, 1595, 1612, 1644, 1661, 1743, 1900, and 1980. Comparisons with limnological records from North Dakota and Minnesota suggest that multidecadal fluctuations in regional hydroclimate have been remarkably coherent across the northeastern Great Plains during the last 600 yr. However, individual dry years in the Red River basin were usually associated with larger scale drought across much of the North American interior.

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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations89
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207