MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122649433 · doi:10.1029/2011gl049427

Shrinking lakes of the Arctic: Spatial relationships and trajectory of change

2011· article· en· W3122649433 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Carroll, J. R. Townshend, C. Dimiceli, Tatiana Loboda, R. A. Sohlberg

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeliospherePhysicsInterplanetary scintillationInterplanetary spaceflightTurbulenceSolar windScintillationAtmospheric sciencesPolarEnvironmental scienceAstrophysicsAstronomyMeteorologyCoronal mass ejectionPlasmaNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] Over the past 3 decades the Arctic has seen substantial warming. Previous local to regional scale studies have shown a considerable reduction in the size of lakes in this region. The subsequent exposure of carbon- and methane-rich sediments and the direct changes in surface albedo feed back into the drivers of regional and global climate change. Understanding and quantifying changes in the Arctic is a critical component of climate modeling due to the cooling effect of the Arctic on the global climate. The current work utilizes global satellite data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer (MODIS) instrument to investigate changes in lakes across Canada between 2000 and 2009. The results show a net reduction of more than 6,700 km2 in the surface area of water in lakes across Canada. Modest gains in the southern regions are offset by larger losses in surface area farther north. Additionally, spatial analysis shows that the lakes showing change are clustered in groups. This suggests that local variability may play a role in the observed changes. Further work is needed to extend the analysis to the circumpolar Arctic.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations138
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207