An Assessment of Six Dissimilarity Metrics for Climate Analogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial analog techniques consist in identifying locations whose historical climate is similar to the anticipated future climate at a reference location. In the process of identifying analogs, one key step is the quantification of the dissimilarity between two climates separated in time and space, which involves the choice of a metric. In this study, six a priori suitable metrics are described (the standardized Euclidean distance, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic, the nearest-neighbor distance, the Zech–Aslan energy statistic, the Friedman–Rafsky runs statistic, and the Kullback–Leibler divergence) and criteria are proposed and investigated in an attempt to identify the best metric for selecting spatial analogs. The case study involves the use of numerical simulations performed with the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM, version 4.2.3), from which three annual indicators (total precipitation, heating degree-days, and cooling degree-days) are calculated over 30-yr periods (1971–2000 and 2041–70). It is found that the six metrics identify comparable analog regions at a relatively large scale but that best analogs may differ substantially. For best analogs, it is shown that the uncertainty stemming from the metric choice does not generally exceed that stemming from the simulation or model choice. On the basis of the set of criteria considered in this study, the Zech–Aslan energy statistic stands out as the most recommended metric for analog studies, whereas the Friedman–Rafsky runs statistic is the least recommended.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".