MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2951032547 · doi:10.82308/4515

Drought and associated cloud fields over the Canadian Prairies

2009· article· en· W2951032547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationAlbedo (alchemy)Cloud coverForestryGeographyMeteorologyCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Très peu est connu a propos des nuages durant une sècheresse. Entre 1999 et 2005, les Prairies canadiennes ont vécu une des sècheresses les plus sévères et les plus longues dans ses registres climatologiques. L'objectif de cette étude est de caractériser et de mieux comprendre les nuages et leurs propriétés radiatives durant les sècheresses dans les provinces des Prairies canadiennes. Une attention particulière a été donnée à cette récente sècheresse. La sévérité de la sècheresse a été déterminée avec l'index standardise de précipitations. Les propriétés des nuages obtenues de la base de données du Budget Radiatif de Surface de NASA/GEWEX ont été utilisées pour examiner l'ensemble de la quantité de nuage, l'épaisseur optique et l'albédo du haut de l'atmosphère. Les résultats ont démontré que malgré une légère différence dans la quantité de nuage entre des périodes sèches et humide (une augmentation d'environ 10% dans la couverture nuageuse de 63% durant des conditions extrêmement sèches a 73% pendant des périodes extrêmement humide), la corrélation avec la précipitation est faible. Les nuages minces augmentent lorsque la sévérité de la sècheresse augmente, alors que les nuages d'épaisseur moyenne ou épaisse diminuent. Les résultats ont aussi démontré que des tendances similaires se rapportent à plus petite échelle.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds→French-language works237,207→