MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077853268 · doi:10.3354/cr030175

Analysis of consecutive droughts on the Canadian Prairies

2006· article· en· W2077853268 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsGeographyPrecipitationAgriculturePercentileGrowing seasonForestryDemographyMeteorologyAgronomyMathematicsStatisticsBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Prairie precipitation totals were classified using fixed thresholds corresponding to the 10th percentile and median for the growing season (April to August) and agricultural year (September to August), in order to study the incidence of consecutive drought. These time frames are significant to water supply and agricultural activities. Consecutive drought events were classified as either back to back years with precipitation below the 10th percentile, or a year with precipitation below the 10th percentile followed by one or more years with less than median precipitation. The Palliser Triangle (an area in the southern Prairies) most consistently recorded consecutive drought events. While generally receiving higher precipitation totals, stations in the north were not immune to such events. Using the Palmer Drought Index, severe droughts were detected in the 1910s, 1930s and 1960s, corresponding to notably dry periods across the Canadian Prairies as a whole.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.290 · 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