MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098214837

Development of Climate Change

2016· article· en· W7098214837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownscalingClimate changeWatershedPrecipitationClimate modelDistribution (mathematics)Statistical modelEcological forecasting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change studies are crucial to assist decision-makers in understanding future risks and planning adequate adaptation measures. In general, Global/Regional Climate Models (GCMs/RCMs) achieve coarse resolutions, and are thus unable to provide sufficient information to conduct local climate assessments. Downscaling, defined as a method that derives local to regional-scale (10 to 100 km) information from larger-scale models or data analyses, is used to address this deficiency. In this thesis, a particular downscaling technique, known as the Quantile-Quantile transformation, was used to adjust the statistical distribution of RCM variables to match the statistical distribution of the observed variables generated by two RCMs: the Canadian Regional Climate Model version 3.7.1 and the ARPEGE model, on the historical period (1961-2001). The analyses presented in this study were applied to daily precipitation as well as maximum and minimum temperatures in the South Nation watershed in Eastern Ontario, Canada. The two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that the Quantile-Quantile transformation improved the shape of the PDF of RCM-simulated

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207