MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1901970062 · doi:10.3137/ao1112.2010

Potential and limitations of using satellite data to evaluate the spatial detail in climatological air temperature maps

2010· article· en· W1901970062 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Normand Bussières, Ewa J. Milewska

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSatelliteEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingLand coverSmoothingMeteorologyInterpolation (computer graphics)Thermal infraredSmoothing splineSpline (mechanical)InfraredLand useSpline interpolationGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Detailed patterns of spatial variability in surface temperature can be observed with the use of thermal infrared data from satellites. A method is developed to use clear‐sky thermal infrared satellite data to evaluate traditional monthly average maximum air temperature maps interpolated from observations at surface stations using a statistical thin plate smoothing spline method. Results of comparisons over Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan from June to October, for the years 2001 to 2005, are presented. The satellite data allow identification of some limitations in the interpolation technique at high altitudes in mountain ranges and in data‐sparse areas due to low station density. In the data‐sparse areas, the highest discrepancies could be linked to the unrepresentativeness of the stations because of different land cover or the presence of water bodies. Conversely, the interpolated air temperature maps allow the identification of problems with using thermal infrared data to estimate near‐surface air temperatures in areas of significant moisture deficit and at the locations of water bodies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207