MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2350137894

Analysis on Correlation between Groundwater Table and Precipitation in Xi'an City

2009· article· en· W2350137894 on OpenAlexaff
Song Jinxi

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater tableGroundwaterPrecipitationHydrology (agriculture)Table (database)Correlation coefficientEnvironmental scienceInfiltration (HVAC)GeologyMeteorologyGeographyStatisticsMathematicsGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rainfall infiltration is one of the important replenishment sources for the increasing groundwater table.Analysis of the correlation between groundwater table and precipitation can provides theoretical reference for the infiltration of regional urban rainfall utilization.According to the given dates of groundwater table and precipitation from related gauging stations,this paper analyzed the correlation between groundwater table and precipitation in Xi'an city.The result shows that the coefficient of the annual groundwater table and annual mean precipitation is 0.6799 in flood plain areas,which is the largest,while the smallest one is 0.228,which occurs in the loess tableland during the period of 1983-2003.The coefficient between the annual variation of groundwater table and annual variation of precipitation is 0.482 from 2002 to 2003.From the comparative analyses of correlation between the monthly variations of groundwater table and precipitation on the basis of 99 data sets of them in 2003,only 40 data sets show the considerable correlation.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicEnvironmental and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207