MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410785418 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2025.2500648

Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Trends in Canada and Regions of the United States North of 40°N 1999–2023

2025· article· en· W4410785418 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
William R. Burrows, Bohdan Kochtubajda, Gabor Fricska

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsLightning (connector)Cloud computingMeteorologyEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceGeographyPhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An assessment of the temporal and spatial trends in lightning activity in Canada and adjacent United States was undertaken using cloud-to-ground (CG) stroke data collected by the Canadian Lightning Detection Network from 1999 to 2023. The nonparametric Mann-Kendall test was used to identify monotonic trends in the data. The direction of trends was determined by the slope of a linear fit to the data. Common perceptions are that lightning will increase due to climate change, but at least in temperate latitudes, based on trends shown here the full picture is more nuanced. Total and negative-polarity CG lightning has shown a steady decline nationally in the observing period. The decline is most pronounced in Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and adjacent regions of the United States. Declines have also been detected over the eastern Prairies (SK and MB) and Atlantic Canada. An increasing trend, however, has been observed in the three northern territories, northern BC and northern AB. Sizeable areas of upward-trending positive CG lightning within wildfire environments have been detected. Observed trends in CG lightning may be explained by long-term changes in the continental-scale general circulation that are likely due to the onset of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation coupled with ENSO events occurring in a climate warming background.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207