Anthropogenic influence on the changing risk of heat waves over India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overarching goal of this paper is to shed light on the human influence on the changing patterns of heat waves in India using the Heat Wave Magnitude Index daily (HWMId). The HWMId obtained from the observational data sets shows a large increase in the heat waves during the past decades. Investigating the effects of natural (e.g., solar variations and volcanic forcings) and anthropogenic (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, anthropogenic, land use, and land cover) forcings revealed that the anthropogenic factors have cause a two-fold increase in the occurrence probability of severe heat waves in central and mid-southern India during twentieth century. The spatial distribution of maximum HWMId values under natural and all forcings (including anthropogenic) indicates that in most places human activities have increases the frequency, duration and intensity of extreme heat waves. Under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, the risk of heat waves is projected to increase tenfold during the twenty-first century. More than ~ 70% of the land areas in India is projected to be influenced by heat waves with magnitudes greater than 9. Furthermore, we find a significant relationship between heat waves and deficits in precipitation. Results show that concurrent heat waves and droughts are projected to increase in most places in India during the twenty-first century.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".