Assessing regression‐based statistical approaches for downscaling precipitation over North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper assesses linear regression‐based methods in downscaling daily precipitation from the general circulation model (GCM) scale to a regional climate model (RCM) scale (45‐ and 15‐km grids) and down to a station scale across North America. Traditional downscaling experiments (linking reanalysis/dynamical model predictors to station precipitation) as well as nontraditional experiments such as predicting dynamic model precipitation from larger‐scale dynamic model predictors or downscaling dynamic model precipitation from predictors at the same scale are conducted. The latter experiments were performed to address predictability limit and scale issues. The results showed that the downscaling of daily precipitation occurrence was rarely successful at all scales, although results did constantly improve with the increased resolution of climate models. The explained variances for downscaled precipitation amounts at the station scales were low, and they became progressively better when using predictors from a higher‐resolution climate model, thus showing a clear advantage in using predictors from RCMs driven by reanalysis at its boundaries, instead of directly using reanalysis data. The low percentage of explained variances resulted in considerable underestimation of daily precipitation mean and standard deviation. Although downscaling GCM precipitation from GCM predictors (or RCM precipitation from RCM predictors) cannot really be considered downscaling, as there is no change in scale, the exercise yields interesting information as to the limit in predictive ability at the station scale. This was especially clear at the GCM scale, where the inability of downscaling GCM precipitation from GCM predictors demonstrates that GCM precipitation‐generating processes are largely at the subgrid scale (especially so for convective events), thus indicating that downscaling precipitation at the station scale from GCM scale is unlikely to be successful. Although results became better at the RCM scale, the results indicate that, overall, regression‐based approaches did not perform well in downscaling precipitation over North America. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.022 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".