MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396641236 · doi:10.5194/hess-2023-297-ac1

Reply on RC2

2024· peer-review· en· W4396641236 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura G. Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study evaluates the seasonal and inter-seasonal temperature regime of small tundra ponds ubiquitous to an extensive low-gradient wetland in the Canadian High Arctic. Pond temperatures can modify evaporation and ground thaw rates, losses of greenhouse gases and control the timing and emergence of insects and larvae critical for migratory bird feeding habits. We focus our study on thaw ponds with a range of hydrologic linkages and sizes across Nanuit Itillinga, formerly known as Polar Bear Pass (PBP), Bathurst Island, and whenever possible, compare their thermal signals to other Arctic ponds. Pond temperatures and water levels were evaluated using temperature water level loggers and verified by regular manual measurements. Other environmental data collected included microclimate, frost table depths and water conductivity. Our results show that there is much variability in pond thermal regimes over seasons, years, and space. Cumulative relative pond temperatures were similar across years, with ponds normally reaching 10–15 °C for short to longer periods except in 2013, a cold summer season when pond temperatures never exceeded 5 °C. Pond frost tables and water conductivities respond to variable substrate conditions and pond thermal patterns. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion of climate warming and its impact on Arctic landscapes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0120.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1720.118

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→