MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129310435 · doi:10.1029/2002eo000402

Permafrost temperature records: Indicators of climate change

2002· article· en· W2129310435 on OpenAlexaff
V. E. Romanovsky, M M Burgess, Sharon L. Smith, Kenji Yoshikawa, Jerry Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostArcticNorthern HemisphereClimate changeGeologyPhysical geographyEarth scienceEnvironmental scienceClimatologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permafrost has received much attention recently because surface temperatures are rising in most permafrost areas of the Earth, bringing permafrost to the edge of widespread thawing and degradation. The thawing of permafrost that already occurs at the southern limits of the permafrost zone can generate dramatic changes in ecosystems and in infrastructure performance. In this article, we describe an emerging system for comprehensive monitoring of permafrost temperatures, a system which is needed for timely detection of worldwide changes in permafrost stability, and for predictions of negative consequences of permafrost degradation. Permafrost is rock, sediment, or any other Earth material with a temperature that remains below 0°C for two or more years. Permafrost zones occupy up to 24% of the exposed land area of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 1) [Zhang et al., 2000]. Permafrost ranges from very cold (temperatures of −10°C and lower) and very thick (more than 500 m and as much as 1400 m) in the Arctic, to warm (within 1 or 2° of the melting point) and thin (several meters or less in thickness) in the sub‐Arctic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations203
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207