MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101125310 · doi:10.1175/bams-85-8-1143

Hydroclimatic Factors of the Recent Record Drop in Laurentian Great Lakes Water Levels

2004· article· en· W2101125310 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond A. Assel, Frank H. Quinn, Cynthia E. Sellinger

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Clair College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater yearEnvironmental scienceSurface runoffPrecipitationHydrology (agriculture)Water balanceWater levelStructural basinHistorical recordOceanographyDrainage basinGeographyGeologyMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extreme low-water supply episode from 1997 to 2000 resulted in the largest 1-yr drop in Lakes Michigan–Huron and Lake Erie water levels (0.92 and 1.03 m, respectively) recorded since measurements began in the early 1800s. Lake Superior water levels were the lowest since 1925. Lakes Erie and Ontario also had relatively low levels. The episode was unusual, particularly when compared to the record-low water episode of the mid-1960s, in that the primary hydroclimatological driver was high air temperatures and not extremely low precipitation. The high air temperatures resulted in unusually high lake evaporation rates and decreased basin runoff. The drop in levels during this episode was compared to other 1–3-yr decreases throughout the period of record. A comparison of the 1997–2000 episode for Lakes Michigan–Huron with the 1960–64 episode, which led to record-low lake levels in 1964, shows that the various elements of the water balance have differing importance in the two episodes.

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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations70
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207