MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565304112 · doi:10.1002/jgrd.50323

Multisegment statistical bias correction of daily GCM precipitation output

2013· article· en· W1565304112 on OpenAlexaff
Manolis Grillakis, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Ioannis K. Tsanis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantilePrecipitationEstimatorCumulative distribution functionForcing (mathematics)StatisticsFunction (biology)MathematicsProbability density functionMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An improved bias correction method for daily general circulation model (GCM) precipitation is presented. The method belongs to the widely used family of quantile mapping correction methods. The method uses different instances of gamma function that are fitted on multiple discrete segments on the precipitation cumulative density function (CDF), instead of the common quantile‐quantile approach that uses one theoretical distribution to fit the entire CDF. This imposes to the method the ability to better transfer the observed precipitation statistics to the raw GCM data. The selection of the segment number is performed by an information criterion to poise between complexity and efficiency of the transfer function. The global precipitation output of Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Coupled Model for the period 1960–2000 is bias corrected using the precipitation observations of WATCH Forcing Data. The 1960–1980 period of observations was used to calibrate the bias correction method, while 1981–2000 was used for validation. The proposed method performs well on the validation period, according to two performance estimators.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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

Citations87
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207