An assessment of historical and projected future hydro‐climatic variability and extremes over southern watersheds in the Canadian Prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Since human activities and ecosystem health require adequate, reliable water supplies, hydro‐climatic variability and extremes pose serious threats to society and the environment. Previous studies have shown that the Canadian Prairies normally experience considerable hydro‐climatic variability, including periodic droughts and excessive moisture conditions, which are mainly caused by mid‐tropospheric circulations that disrupt expected precipitation and temperature patterns. However, no investigations have specifically focused on both past and future hydro‐climatology over watersheds within the region. Evaluation of the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index reveals considerable inter‐annual and decadal‐scale variability over the study regions of the Oldman and Swift Current Creek Watersheds, with no discernible trends during the last ∼100 years. There is also an indication of increased variability since the mid‐1980s. Assessment of the 500 hPa circulation patterns associated with identified hydro‐climatic extremes shows that major droughts are related with higher frequencies of distinctive ridging patterns over the Prairie region, and lower incidences of zonal/troughing patterns (the former significantly increasing over the last 60 years). Excessive moisture conditions have opposite patterns. Projections from two (a drier/warmer and wetter/cooler) Regional Climate Models indicate an uncertain future in the selected watersheds ranging from a substantial increase in drought with a higher degree of inter‐annual variability, to relatively no change from current conditions. Furthermore, future changes to key atmospheric circulations suggest that those patterns associated with extreme dry conditions will continue in the future and in some cases, increase in frequency. Results from this analysis have improved the understanding of historical hydro‐climatic extremes in western Canada and have provided insight into potential future occurrences of these extremes as driven by changes to key surface climate and synoptic‐scale atmospheric circulation patterns.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".