MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470030894 · doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3239-8

Investigation of the 2013 Alberta flood from weather and climate perspectives

2016· article· en· W2470030894 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bernardo Teufel, G. T. Diro, Kirien Whan, Shawn M. Milrad, Dae Il Jeong, Arman Ganji, O. Huziy, Katja Winger, John R. Gyakum, Ramón de Elía, Francis W. Zwiers, Laxmi Sushama

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Dynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsImpactMcGill UniversityPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsUniversity of VictoriaOuranosUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationEvapotranspirationOrographyFlood mythClimatologySnowmeltSurface runoffSnowClimate changeOrographic liftGreenhouse gasHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeographyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

conditions. Frozen and snow-covered soils at high elevations are likely to have played an important role in generating record streamflows. Results point to a doubling of surface runoff due to the frozen conditions, while 25 % of the modelled runoff originated from snowmelt. The estimated return time of the 3-day precipitation event exceeds 50 years over a large region, and an increase in the occurrence of similar extreme precipitation events is projected by the end of the 21st century. Event attribution analysis suggests that greenhouse gas increases may have increased 1-day and 3-day return levels of May-June precipitation with respect to pre-industrial climate conditions. However, no anthropogenic influence can be detected for 1-day and 3-day surface runoff, as increases in extreme precipitation in the present-day climate are offset by decreased snow cover and lower frozen water content in soils during the May-June transition months, compared to pre-industrial climate.

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)0.000
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations64
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate DynamicsSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207