Drought severity and change in Xinjiang, China, over 1961–2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monthly climatic data from 53 sites across Xinjiang, China, were used to compare drought severity from the widely accepted Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) with the recently proposed Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), as well as trends in the data from 1961 to 2013. Monthly Thornthwaite based (ETo.TW) and Penman-Monteith based reference evapotranspiration (ETo.PM) were computed and subsequently used to estimate SPEITW and SPEIPM, respectively. The indices' sensitivity, spatiotemporal distributions and trends were analyzed. The results showed that the TW equation underestimated ETo, which affected the accuracy of the SPEI estimation. Greater consistency was found between SPI and SPEIPM than between SPI and SPEITW at different timescales. SPI and SPEIPM were sensitive to precipitation, but SPEITW and SPEIPM were insensitive to ETo. The scope of spatial SPEIPM was wider than that of SPI at the same timescale. Obvious differences in SPI, SPEITW and SPEIPM existed between northern and southern Xinjiang. SPEIPM was a better indicator of global warming than SPI. Both SPI and SPEIPM had increasing trends, which contradict previously reported trends in global drought. In conclusion, the decrease in drought severity observed over the last 53 years may indicate some relief in the water utilization crisis in Xinjiang, China.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".