MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018920486 · doi:10.1175/2011bams3132.1

Customized Spatial Climate Models for North America

2011· article· en· W2018920486 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Strengths and weaknessesRange (aeronautics)Environmental resource managementClimate changeService (business)Climate modelSpatial ecologyGeographyMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEcologyBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, and their partners have developed customized spatial spline models and gridded datasets for North America for a wide variety of variables, time steps, and spatial resolutions. The initial motivation in developing the models was to address forestry-related issues, however, many agencies and researchers have since used them in a variety of applications. The parameters for the basic model, along with the amount of data smoothing, are usually estimated by minimizing a diagnostic called the generalized cross validation (GCV). Average withheld error estimates for temperature and precipitation models across spatially representative locations at the monthly normal, historical monthly, and historical daily time steps, show that errors associated with the normal surfaces are small, reflecting the greater spatial coherence of monthly normals.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.183 · 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