MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400484423 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112287

An assessment of climate change impacts on oases in northern Africa

2024· article· en· W4400484423 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Leal Filho, Robert Stojanov, C. Matsoukas, Roberto Ingrosso, James Franke, Francesco S. R. Pausata, Tommaso Grassi, Jaromír Landa, Moulay Chérif Harrouni

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationGlobal warmingEcosystemGeographyPhysical geographyEcologyClimatologyMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Oases are vulnerable ecosystems affected by climate change. • Projected air temperature changes under an extreme global warming scenario are statistically significant for all oases studied. • The impact of the projected changes is likely to lead to a greater groundwater demand. • Water shortage is a trend paralleled by a reduction in precipitation. Oases are vulnerable ecosystems that are affected by climate change. Using high-resolution climate models focusing on northern Africa, we investigate the changes in the agrosystems of oases. Projected air temperature changes under an extreme global warming scenario are statistically significant for all oases studied, with an increase of up to 4–4.5 °C by the end of the century. The impact of the projected warming is likely to lead to an increased groundwater demand, with a parallel trend in reduced precipitation. Combined, these processes endanger the long-term socio-economic prospect of oases.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207