MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274528186 · doi:10.5539/esr.v5n1p129

A Historical Analysis of Rainfall Trend in the Olifants Basin in South Africa

2016· article· en· W2274528186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Gyamfi, Julius Musyoka Ndambuki, R. W. Salim

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Science Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTshwane University of Technology
KeywordsStructural basinTrend analysisHomogeneity (statistics)ClimatologyClimate changeEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)GeographyPhysical geographyCartographyStatisticsGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of homogeneity test methods and the Mann-Kendall trend test were applied on historical rainfall records of the Olifants Basin to detect changes in rainfall pattern under a changing climate. In total, historical rainfall records from 13 stations obtained from the South African Weather Service (SAWS) and the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) spanning the period 1975-2013 were used in the analysis. Results of the study indicate an insignificant declining rainfall trend in the Olifants Basin with a mean annual rainfall of 664 mm. Rainfall in the basin exhibits spatio–temporal variation with coefficient of variation of 24%. Inter-annual and seasonal variability is dominant in the records examined. Changes observed in rainfall over the years were therefore concluded to have resulted due to climate change impacts.

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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Science ResearchSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207