MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263577750 · doi:10.3133/fs20143060

Strategic needs of water on the Yukon: An interdisciplinary approach to studying hydrology and climate change in the Lower Yukon River Basin

2014· article· en· W2263577750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole M. Herman‐Mercer, Paul F. Schuster

Bibliographic record

VenueFact sheet · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsClimate changeSubarctic climateGeneral partnershipArcticGovernment (linguistics)Structural basinGeographyEnvironmental resource managementDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceOceanographyEngineeringGeologyArchaeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategic Needs of Water on the Yukon (SNOWY) is an interdisciplinary research project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF; http://www.nsf.gov/). The SNOWY team is made up of a diverse group of researchers from different backgrounds and organizations. This partnership between scientists from different disciplines (hydrology, geography, and social science), government agencies, nonprofit organizations, universities, and Lower Yukon River Basin (LYRB) and Yukon-Kuskokwim (YK) Delta communities provided an opportunity to study the effects of climate change using a holistic approach. The Arctic and Subarctic are experiencing environmental change at a rate faster than the rest of the world, and the lack of historical baseline data in these often remote locations makes understanding and predicting regional climate change difficult. This project focused on collecting data to fill in these gaps by using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to tell the story of environmental change in this region as told by the physical data and the people who rely on this landscape.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFact sheetSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207