MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098398478

Rishbeth PRize • tuRnbull: GeomaGnetically induced currents

2010· article· en· W7098398478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeomagnetically induced currentEarth's magnetic fieldGeomagnetic stormBaltic seaElectric power transmissionStormPower grid
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the UK is not normally consid-ered to be at risk from geomagnetically induced currents (GIC, see page 5.23), recent severe geomagnetic storms driven by solar activity have resulted in large GIC being observed in Scotland. Although not large enough to cause blackouts such as those in Sweden and Canada, they are indicative of the potential problems during large geo-magnetic storms, which can occur with little warning. As society becomes ever more dependent on technology, the space-weather hazard should be assessed for mid-latitude countries such as the UK. As this is a relatively small country, its power network (the National Grid) does not contain the long power lines present in countries such as Canada, which can produce large GIC. However, the UK grid is complex and with the future possible inclusion of, for example, isolated wind farms, may soon include longer lines. The UK also has a complicated geological structure and is surrounded by a shallow sea shelf, with the deep ocean on one side and continental Europe on the other – factors that play a role in the production of GIC during geomagnetic storms. In addition, the National Grid is not isolated; it is con-nected to Northern Ireland and France by undersea direct current power transmission lines. In the long term this means that the effect of GIC in Europe needs to be considered. For the time being, we have studied the UK in isolation. A GIC model that already exists at the British Geological Survey (Thompson 2005) has been used to evaluate the risk of GIC in the Scottish section of the grid, by comparing predicted GIC results to GIC data, which are monitored by Scottish Power at four locations: Hunterston, Neilston, Strathaven and Torness. These same sites are used to test a new model of the entire

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1470.063

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207