MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2387122992

Variation characteristics of the starting date and length of seasons over Northeast China during 1961 to 2010

2014· article· en· W2387122992 on OpenAlexaff
Le Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Meteorological Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaSowingSpring (device)CropGeographyEnvironmental scienceSeasonalityPhysical geographyClimatologyAgronomyBiologyForestryEcologyGeologyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the recorded data from 90 meteorological stations over Northeast China during1961—2010 and the four-season division method proposed by Qianchen,the variation features of starting date and length of seasons were analyzed and its effects on agriculture were discussed. The results show that the average starting dates were April 10,June 25,August 11,October 20 and average length were80 d,51 d,72 d,171 d for spring,summer,autumn and winter respectively over Northeast China in the last 50 years with obvious spatial variations. It is clear that starting dates of spring and summer became earlier with the trends of- 1. 46 d /10 a and- 1. 99 d /10 a,while in autumn and winter,it became later with the values of 2. 05 d /10 a and 0. 90 d /10 a. The average length of spring,autumn and winter became shorter,amounting to- 0. 54 d /10 a,- 1. 15 d /10 a and- 2. 50 d /10 a respectively,the confidence levels in spring and autumn tended not to be able to pass,but it was at 0. 05 in winter. Summer became longer at the rate of 3. 38 d /10 a. The early coming of starting date of spring and its delay in autumn contribute to extending the growing period of crops and greatly affect the crop varieties and planting pattern.

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 score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Meteorological SciencesSame topicEnvironmental and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207