MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978379410 · doi:10.1002/joc.6317

Climatic trends in fog occurrence over the Indo‐Gangetic plains

2019· article· en· W2978379410 on OpenAlexaff
Saumya G. Kutty, A. P. Dimri, Ismail Gültepe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Climatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceClimatologyVisibilityForcing (mathematics)Heat waveClimate changeUrbanizationHumidityRelative humidityWind speedAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Indo‐Gangetic plains (IGP) in India witness widespread fog during winter months of December–January–February (DJF) since 1970s at temperatures between 5 and 20°C. Despite its vast spatial extent, the localized physical nature of fog over various time and space scales limits successful attempts of its accurate prediction. This poses a challenge towards reducing calamities and huge economic losses associated with the consequent visibility degradation. Increasing rate of urbanization and both enhanced natural and anthropogenic forcing influence fog formation, persistence, and dissipation. It is imperative to understand the associated changes in fog trends to ascertain the effect of these forcing on fog and quantify its prediction. Therefore, the trends in fog occurrence over the Indo‐Gangetic plains are assessed for a period of 37 years from 1977/1978–2013/2014 (DJF). A statistically significant increasing trend in fog frequency is found to be related to changes in associated meteorological parameters. The shift of visibility around year of 1998 is indicated by important changes occurred in temperature, humidity, and wind speed. Distinct patterns before and after 1998 are observed for fog visibility conditions and that may have significant implications for weather forecasts and local climate change.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ClimatologySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207