<scp>N</scp>orth <scp>A</scp>merican precipitation isotope (δ<sup>18</sup>O) zones revealed in time series modeling across <scp>C</scp>anada and northern <scp>U</scp>nited <scp>S</scp>tates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Delineating spatial patterns of precipitation isotopes (“isoscapes”) is becoming increasingly important to understand the processes governing the modern water isotope cycle and their application to migration forensics, climate proxy interpretation, and ecohydrology of terrestrial systems. However, the extent to which these patterns can be empirically predicted across Canada and the northern United States has not been fully articulated, in part due to a lack of time series precipitation isotope data for major regions of North America. In this study, we use multiple linear regressions of CNIP, GNIP, and USNIP observations alongside climatological variables, teleconnection indices, and geographic indicators to create empirical models that predict the δ 18 O of monthly precipitation (δ 18 O ppt ) across Canada and the northern United States. Five regionalization approaches are used to separate the study domain into isotope zones to explore the effect of spatial grouping on model performance. Stepwise regression‐derived parameterizations quantified by permutation testing indicate the significance of precipitable water content and latitude as predictor variables. Within the Canadian Arctic and eastern portion of the study domain, models from all regionalizations capture the interannual and intraannual variability of δ 18 O ppt . The Pacific coast and northwestern portions of the study domain show less agreement between models and poorer model performance, resulting in higher uncertainty in simulations throughout these regions. Long‐term annual average δ 18 O ppt isoscapes are generated, highlighting the uncertainty in the regionalization approach as it compounds over time. Additionally, monthly time series simulations are presented at various locations, and model structure uncertainty and 90% bootstrapped prediction bounds are detailed for these predictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".