MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179125224 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14070326

Causes and Effects of Sand and Dust Storms: What Has Past Research Taught Us? A Survey

2021· article· en· W3179125224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Opp, Michael Groll, Hamidreza Abbasi, Mansour Ahmadi Foroushani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAeolian processesStormSnowPopulationDamagesAtmosphere (unit)Physical geographyAtmospheric sciencesHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barren ground and sites with low coverage by vegetation (e.g., dunes, soil surfaces, dry lakes, and riverbeds) are the main source areas of sand and dust storms (SDS). The understanding of causes, processes (abrasion, deflation, transport, deposition), and influencing factors of sandy and dusty particles moving by wind both in the boundary layer and in the atmosphere are basic prerequisites to distinguish between SDS. Dust transport in the atmosphere modulates radiation, ocean surface temperature, climate, as well as snow and ice cover. The effects of airborne particles on land are varied and can cause advantages and disadvantages, both in source areas and in sink or deposition areas, with disturbances of natural environments and anthropogenic infrastructure. Particulate matter in general and SDS specifically can cause severe health problems in human respiratory and other organs, especially in children. Economic impacts can be equally devastating, but the costs related to SDS are not thoroughly studied. The available data show huge economic damages caused by SDS and by the mitigation of their effects. Management of SDS-related hazards utilizes remote sensing techniques, on-site observations, and protective measures. Integrated strategies are necessary during both the planning and monitoring of these measures. Such integrated strategies can be successful when they are developed and implemented in close cooperation with the local and regional population and stakeholders.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations58
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicAeolian processes and effectsFrench-language works237,207