Performance Evaluation of the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents an assessment of the operational system used by the Meteorological Service of Canada for producing near-real-time precipitation analyses over North America. The Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) system optimally combines available surface observations with numerical weather prediction (NWP) output in order to produce estimates of precipitation on a 15-km grid at each synoptic hour (0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 UTC). The validation protocol used to assess the quality of the CaPA has demonstrated the usefulness of the system for producing reliable estimates of precipitation over Canada, even in areas with few or no weather stations. The CaPA is found to be better in autumn, spring, and winter than in summer. This is because of the difficulty in correctly producing convective precipitation in the NWP because of the low spatial resolution of the meteorological model. An investigation of the quality of the precipitation analyses in the 15 terrestrial ecozones of Canada indicates the need to have a sufficient number of observations (at least ~1.17 stations per 10 000 km2) in order to produce a precipitation analysis that is significantly better than the raw NWP product. Improvements of the CaPA system by including provincial networks as well as radar and satellite information are expected in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".