MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489366105

ŠEŠUPĖS IR ŽEIMENOS UPIŲ NUOTĖKIO FORMAVIMOSI IR KAITOS YPATYBĖS

2014· article· lt· W2489366105 on OpenAlexaff
Snežana Kazakeviciutė, Valentinas Šaulys

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagelt
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIntegrated Water Resources Management
Canadian institutionsThe Alberta Paraplegic Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Straipsnyje nagrinjama nuotkio kaita 2 upiu baseinuose: Sesups ir Žeimenos. Sie baseinai issidste skirtingose Lietuvos teritorijos dalyse (Sesup teka vidurio Lietuvos dalyje, o Žeimena – pietryciu), jie turi skirtingas litologines (Žeimenos upje smlio gruntai užima 76 %, o Sesups tik 10 %) ir fizines-geografines (miskai Žeimenos baseine užima 37 %, o Sesups 17 %) salygas. Straipsnyje analizuojami naujausi hidrologiniai (upiu vandens debitai ir lygiai) ir meteorologiniai (krituliu intensyvumai, trukm, reiskiniu pobudis, bei temperaturos Vilniaus ir Kybartu stotyse) duomenys. Darbo pagrindas susideda is sudarytu hidrografu analizs. Is ju galima spresti apie nuotkio kaita. Hidrografai sudaryti pagal ryskiausius metus, t.y. pagal metus, kai krituliu intensyvumas buvo didžiausias, bei vandens debitas. Žeimenos upje nuotkis labiau islygintas, nei Sesupje. Intensyviausiais metais (vertinant didžiausia krituliu kieki) Sesupje pavasario potvynis prasidjo labai anksti, jau sausio mnesi debitas žymiai padidjo, Žeimenos upje aiskus debito didjimas buvo tik kovo mnesi, nors vertinant meteorologines salygas, krituliu intensyvumai ir vidutins dienos temperaturos buvo maždaug panasus. Tai ir rodo, kad didžiausia itaka daro baseino issidstymo salygos. Darbo tikslas – ivertinti nuotkio kaita pasirinktose objektuose, pasinaudojus naujausiomis duomenimis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Water Resources ManagementFrench-language works237,207