MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166648790 · doi:10.1126/science.abf3668

Glaciohydrology of the Himalaya-Karakoram

2021· review· en· W3166648790 on OpenAlexaff
Mohd Farooq Azam, Jeffrey S. Kargel, J. M. Shea, Santosh Nepal, Umesh K. Haritashya, Smriti Srivastava, Fabien Maussion, Nuzhat Qazi, Pierre Chevallier, A. P. Dimri, Anil V. Kulkarni, J. Graham Cogley, I. M. Bahuguna

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsGlacierSnowClimate changeCentral asiaGeologyEarth sciencePhysical geographyGeographyMeteorologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the response of Himalayan-Karakoram (HK) rivers to climate change is crucial for ~1 billion people who partly depend on these water resources. Policy-makers tasked with sustainable water resources management require an assessment of the rivers' current status and potential future changes. We show that glacier and snow melt are important components of HK rivers, with greater hydrological importance for the Indus basin than for the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins. Total river runoff, glacier melt, and seasonality of flow are projected to increase until the 2050s, with some exceptions and large uncertainties. Critical knowledge gaps severely affect modeled contributions of different runoff components, future runoff volumes, and seasonality. Therefore, comprehensive field observation-based and remote sensing-based methods and models are needed.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.297
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations266
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207