MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415243022 · doi:10.1029/2025gl118662

Prevailing Climate Patterns for Concurrent High Temperature and Low Precipitation Days in Canada

2025· article· en· W4415243022 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chandra Rupa Rajulapati, Alex Crawford, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Julienne Strœve

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPrecipitationClimate extremesClimate changeArcticThe arcticPeriod (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, we evaluated the changing frequency of concurrent daily High Temperature and Low Precipitation (HTLP) and its relationship with large‐scale climate patterns across Canada. Our analysis showed a significant increase (up to 3 days/decade) in the Canadian Arctic and southern regions of British Columbia and an insignificant decrease in HTLP frequency in the Prairies of Saskatchewan and Manitoba during 1979–2018. We examined ten large‐scale climate patterns influencing precipitation and temperature in Canada. Among these, four climate indices (the East Pacific‐North Pacific Pattern, North Atlantic Oscillation, Oceanic Niño Index, and East Atlantic Pattern) were noted as significant influencers of HTLP frequency, ranked in descending order of influence. Our research holds significance in explaining the spatial dynamics of HTLP days and the role of large‐scale climate patterns therein, providing valuable insights for future research on heatwaves and droughts, mitigation efforts, and policy changes tailored to vulnerable 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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→