MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810278799 · doi:10.3390/w10070877

A New Assessment of Hydrological Change in the Source Region of the Yellow River

2018· article· en· W2810278799 on OpenAlexaff
Pan Wu, Sihai Liang, Xu‐Sheng Wang, Yuqing Feng, Jeffrey M. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersChina Geological SurveyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsClimate changePermafrostEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)DischargeSeparation (statistics)Global warmingClimatologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrological responses to climate change are a widely concerning question, particularly for the source region of the Yellow River (SRYR), which is sensitive to climate change and is widely underlain by frozen ground. In considering climate change impacts on catchment properties, the traditional separation approach based on the Budyko framework was modified to identify and quantify the climatic causes of discharge changes. On the basis of the decomposition method, the traditional separation method and the modified separation method were used to analyse the discharge change in the SRYR. Using the observed annual maximum frozen depth (MFD) to indicate the frozen ground level, the impacts of frozen-ground degradation on the discharge change were further considered using the modified separation method. Our results show that the traditional separation approach underestimated climate-induced discharge change; over the past half-century, the discharge change in the SRYR has been primarily controlled by climate change. Increasing air temperature is generally a negative force on discharge generation; however, it also causes frozen ground to degrade—a positive factor for discharge generation. Such conflicting effects enhance the uncertainty in assessments of hydrological responses to climate change in the sub-basins with widely distributed permafrost.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207