MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reply on RC2

2024· peer-review· en· W4401565984 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Amani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Cold regions present unique challenges for land surface models simulating deep percolation or potential groundwater recharge. Previous model evaluation efforts often overlooked these regions and did not account for various sources of uncertainties influencing model performance and its evaluation. This work addresses these limitations using high-resolution integrated lysimeter measurements to assess the performance of the SVS land surface model in a cold climate. SVS showed promise in the simulation of snowmelt and rainfall-driven deep percolation events. It also simulated daily snow depth well, with a correlation coefficient (r) greater than 0.94 and a mean-bias-error (MBE) smaller than 3.0 cm for most of the simulation period. The newly implemented soil-freezing scheme reasonably simulated the near-surface soil temperature (r = 0.89) with a slight cold bias (MBE = -0.8 °C). However, the model's inability to represent frozen soil infiltration and preferential flow resulted in a significant underestimation of percolation (r: 0.35, MBE: -0.8 mm·day-1) and near-surface soil moisture during cold months (MBE: -0.058 m3 ·m-3). Those findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive model evaluation for improving deep percolation modeling in cold regions. Such improvements can lead to more informed decision-making regarding groundwater resource management in a changing climate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0270.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1640.127

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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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