MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402616031 · doi:10.14712/23361980.2024.12

Interpretation of the glacial lake outburst floods database in relation to climatic conditions in different world regions

2024· article· en· W4402616031 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matouš Kovanda

Bibliographic record

VenueAUC GEOGRAPHICA · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Glacial periodRelation (database)Physical geographyGeologyCartographyGeographyDatabaseGeomorphologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the response of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) to climatic conditions since the beginning of the 20th century and during individual seasons based on the data from the publicly available online database recording past GLOFs worldwide. All recorded GLOFs were classified into the regions of Alaska, Western Canada and USA, Central Andes, Southern Andes, Iceland, Scandinavia, Alps, Caucasus, Tian Shan, Central Asia I (west), Central Asia II (east), and New Zealand. In each of these regions, the influence of temperature and precipitation on the frequency of glacial flood occurrences was investigated. It was established that GLOFs occur mainly during the summer months and air temperature is their main triggering factor. Since the frequency of GLOFs is influenced by both temperature and precipitation, a gradual increase in the frequency of GLOFs is expected because of global warming, although the relative importance of each factor will vary across regions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAUC GEOGRAPHICASame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207