Geohazard and Climate adaption:  impacts and interconnectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forefront of science now is in bridging fields and making connections across different disciplines, challenging our current understanding of the Earth's changes and overall state. Some of the most challenging science questions now have to do with warnings for significant geohazards and Earth-Space systems' response to climate variability affecting adaptation processes, such as geosphere changes due to climate change and resultant strategies. In recent years, the study of pre-earthquake processes has led for example to developing the lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere-coupling concept. This in turn provides new information about the Earth's energy balance (Pulinets and Ouzounov, 2011). From space-born NASA and NOAA Earth observation of atmospheric conditions, we have shown the consistent occurrence of radiative emission anomalies in the atmosphere near or over regions of earthquakes, volcanoes, and geothermal fluxes. Our assessment shows that the latent heat released before major earthquakes is larger than the seismic energy released during the quake (Ouzounov et al., 2018). We find that the associated pre-earthquake phenomena for large events may create an additional thermodynamic contribution in the atmosphere and impact on climate, caused by sources of Earth de-gassing in the lithosphere and followed by ionization processes. Because of these findings, we start exploring major global geodynamics activities and their impact on atmospheric processes and climate through the geosphere coupling channels as a potential forward process of interaction between geohazards and climate adaptation. The reverse mechanism of climate adaptation's impact on geohazards is based on the initial idea that climate adaptation could force additional geohazards activities (McGuire, 2010). The removal of ice sheets may somehow or likely have permitted the release of stresses that had accumulated on previously confined faults, triggering earthquakes in the US, Canada, and Europe. How realistically is it to expect a change in the existing earthquake patterns in Europe, the USA, and Canada during climate change processes? It is plausible, but we do not yet know the answer. Our goal is to explore the coupling between geohazards processes and climate change processes through the lithosphere-atmosphere framework, focusing on dynamic environments, exhibiting a change in physical and thermodynamics processes over relatively small-time scales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".