MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7036778948

A Comparative Analysis of Surface Winds in the Mid-Continental United States of America During Severe Droughts in the 1950s and 2010s.

2017· other· en· W7036778948 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101HyporeflexiaArticular cartilage damageProteogenomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mid-Continental United States of America (USA) has experienced several exceptional droughts, which are frequently linked with increased dust storms in response to reduced vegetation and intensified surface wind speeds.This investigation examined surface wind speed behaviour in the Mid-Continental USA between 1954 and 2016 to assess differences in wind speeds between severe drought and wetter periods and determine what climatic conditions may have influenced these changes.Results show that droughts periods had significantly higher extreme surface wind speeds, and the 1950s Southwest drought had significantly higher surface wind speeds compared to the 2010s drought.Composite patterns of sea-level pressure, temperature, precipitation, and Palmer Drought Severity Index suggest that synoptic weather conditions reinforce dry and windy conditions during drought versus wetter years.However, synoptic conditions were largely similar between the two droughts, suggesting that land surface management practices may have been responsible for decreased surface winds during the 2010s drought.

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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicDigital Games and Media→French-language works237,207→