MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150065186 · doi:10.1029/2004gl021089

Relationship between atmospheric circulation and winter precipitation δ<sup>18</sup>O in central New York State

2004· article· en· W2150065186 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Burnett, Henry T. Mullins, William P. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersInternational Atomic Energy Agency
KeywordsPrecipitationAtmospheric circulationClimatologyLow-pressure areaEnvironmental scienceCirculation (fluid dynamics)Atmospheric pressureAtmospheric sciencesGeologyMeteorologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxygen isotope values of meteoric precipitation (δ18O) are strongly influenced by water vapor source and trajectory history, and can therefore be used as a tool for the reconstruction of atmospheric circulation. However, this approach requires an understanding of how differing patterns of atmospheric circulation influence precipitation δ18O. This study examines the relationship between atmospheric circulation and winter precipitation δ18O in central New York State. Circulation back trajectories, weather maps, and δ18O values for 132 precipitation samples were examined to determine the circulation type for each event. Lake‐effect precipitation, which generated the lowest δ18O values, featured low pressure over New England and northwesterly flow over the Great Lakes. Events with the highest δ18O values were associated with low pressure north of New York and strong southerly flow within the warm sector. Less frequent were the Atlantic coastal and warm frontal overrunning events, both of which yielded relatively depleted precipitation.

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 score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207