MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024929764 · doi:10.82308/2630

Meteorological analysis and historical perspective of the 1999-2005 Canadian Prairie drought

2010· article· en· W3024929764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa M. Hryciw

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)GeographyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drought is a complex natural hazard which is endemic to the Canadian Prairies. The 1999-2005 Canadian Prairie drought, which had great socio-economic impacts, was meteorologically unique in that it did not conform to traditional persistent ridging paradigms normally associated with Prairie drought. The purpose of this study is to diagnose the unique synoptic-scale mechanisms that lead to the subsidence in this drought. Using 30-day running means of percent of normal precipitation from station data, we identify key severe dry periods in 1999-2005. Analysis of the mean fields from reanalysis data shows that these dry events are associated with combinations of larger scale subsidence mechanisms of anticyclonic vorticity advection and cold air advection, along with the smaller scale subsidence mechanism of downslope flow. A brief historical perspective shows that the drought was centred in 2001-2002 and was not as severe as historical droughts, suggesting the increased vulnerability of society.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207