Evaluation of Linear and Non-Linear Downscaling Methods in Terms of Daily Variability and Climate Indices: Surface Temperature in Southern Ontario and Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We downscaled atmospheric reanalysis data using linear regression and Bayesian neural network (BNN) ensembles to obtain daily maximum and minimum temperatures at ten weather stations in southern Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Performance of the linear and non-linear downscaling models was evaluated using four different sets of predictors, not only in terms of their ability to reproduce the magnitude of day-to-day variability (i.e., “weather,” mean absolute error between the daily values of the predictand(s) and the downscaled data) but also in terms of their ability to reproduce longer time scale variability (i.e., “climate,” indices of agreement between the predictand's observed annual climate indices and the corresponding downscaled values). The climate indices used were the 90th percentile of the daily maximum temperature, 10th percentile of the daily minimum temperature, number of frost days, heat wave duration, growing season length, and intra-annual temperature range.Our results show that the non-linear models usually outperform their linear counterparts in the magnitude of daily variability and, to a greater extent, in annual climate variability. In particular, the best model simulating weather and climate was a BNN ensemble using stepwise selection from 20 reanalysis predictors, followed by a BNN ensemble using the three leading principal components from the aforementioned predictors. Finally, we showed that, on average, the first three indices presented higher skills than the growing season length, number of frost days, and the heat wave duration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".