MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280008269 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-026

Benefits of Sandstorm Control in China

2014· article· en· W2280008269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhongjie Shi, Xiaohui Yang, Hao Guo, Nan Shan, Yun Tian, Bo Zhang, Xisu Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benefits of the Program Marked decrease in sandstorm eventsSandstorm events, including floating dust, blowing sands and sandstorms themselves, in greater Beijing have been decreasing in number and intensity since 2000.The number of sandstorms from 2000 to 2002 was over 13, hitting 17 in 2002.Despite some fluctuation in numbers since 2003, there is a decreasing trend.According to monitoring data from 22 weather stations from 2000 to 2010, only one station showed an increase in the number of sandstorms, 19 a decrease with 10 recording a sharp decrease.Water conservation areas of the Yanshan Mountains contributed most to the reduction in sandstorms because of afforestation initiatives (Fig. 2), which led to decreases in greater Beijing, Miyun County to the northeast, and the city of Zhangjiakou, northwest of Beijing.The Bashang Plateau, part of Inner Mongolia north of Beijing, a transition zone between cropping and nomadic farming, also showed a decrease in sandstorm events.The Otindag Sandy Land area, an important ecological barrier to block sandstorms originating on the steppes of the Mongolian Plateau being transported to Beijing, showed a sharp decrease in sandstorm events.Spring dust storms decreased from 39.5% in 2000 to 19.8% in 2010.The number of days with an air quality level II in Beijing increased from 177 in 2000 to

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)0.000
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207