MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing the Temporal Dynamics of Terrestrial Water Storage in Ten Large River Basins in China

2022· article· en· W4312724177 on OpenAlexaff
Shiyu Deng, Mingfang Zhang, Yiping Hou, Enxu Yu, Yali Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueIGARSS 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrainage basinChinaWater resourcesEnvironmental scienceStructural basinWater storageHydrology (agriculture)Climate changeClimatologyWater resource managementGeologyGeographyOceanographyEcologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the temporal variations of terrestrial water storage (TWS) in large river basins is crucial for water resource management and ecosystem protection. Yet, the variations of TWS in large river basins are often been assessed in term of temporal trends with limited studies on the stationarity of TWS. In this study, we investigated the temporal trends and stability of TWS in then large river basins in China from 2004 to 2014 using the corrected Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) gravity satellite data. Key findings are: (1) the average TWS in China showed a significant downward trend during the study period; and (2) the TWS in ten large river basins was non-stationary across China. Water surpluses were observed in the Northeast and the Southeast, while water deficits were found in the Northwest and the Southwest. This study provides policy-makers with critical information to design adaptive strategies and plans for basin-scale water resources management.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGARSS 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing SymposiumSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207