MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010250469 · doi:10.5558/tfc2013-118

Spatial climate models for Canada’s forestry community

2013· article· en· W2010250469 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Daniel W. McKenney, John Pedlar, Michael F. Hutchinson, Pia Papadopol, Kevin Lawrence, K Campbell, Ewa J. Milewska, Ron F. Hopkinson, David T. Price

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsClimate modelGeneral Circulation ModelGeographyEnvironmental scienceClimate changeClimatologyLatitudeRange (aeronautics)MeteorologyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We summarize ongoing efforts at the Canadian Forest Service to produce spatial climate models for Canada and the United States. Our models, which encompass a wide range of variables and spatiotemporal extents, typically employ thin plate smoothing splines to interpolate and extrapolate climate station values as a function of latitude, longitude and elevation. The resulting surfaces can be resolved as grids (i.e., maps) or as point estimates at locations of interest. Recent efforts, detailed here include: updated models for the most recent 30-year normal period (i.e., 1981–2010), moisture balance models, future climate projections using the latest round of general circulation model (GCM) outputs and emissions scenarios, lake ice freeze/thaw models, and growing season models. These models are available to the Canadian forest community and beyond via the internet ( http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/3 ) or by contacting the senior author.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.006

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations61
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207