MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explaining Extreme Events of 2018 from a Climate Perspective

2020· article· en· W3006987757 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephanie C. Herring, Nikolaos Christidis, Andrew Hoell, Martin P. Hoerling, Peter A. Stott

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Science and Technology AgencyBureau of ReclamationOffice of ScienceJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNanjing UniversityNanjing University of Information Science and TechnologyChina Scholarship CouncilBNP Paribas CardifDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher EducationU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionUniversity of TorontoMet OfficeAustralian GovernmentMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Centers for Environmental InformationDartmouth CollegeKey Laboratory of Meteorological DisasterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDownloadPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceResolution (logic)High resolutionFile formatData scienceWorld Wide WebRemote sensingGeographyDatabaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Editors note: For easy download the posted pdf of the Explaining Extreme Events of 2018 is a very low-resolution file. A high-resolution copy of the report is available by clicking here . Please be patient as it may take a few minutes for the high-resolution file to download.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations55
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207