MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020059831 · doi:10.4236/nr.2010.11002

Evaluation of Various Linear Regression Methods for Downscaling of Mean Monthly Precipitation in Arid Pichola Watershed

2010· article· en· W2020059831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manish Kumar Goyal, C. S. P. Ojha

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resources · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownscalingEnvironmental scienceClimatologyPrecipitationLinear regressionWatershedAridRegressionStepwise regressionRegression analysisClimate changeRange (aeronautics)Scale (ratio)MeteorologyStatisticsComputer scienceGeographyMathematicsGeologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, downscaling models are developed using various linear regression approaches namely direct, forward, backward and stepwise regression for downscaling of GCM output to predict mean monthly precipitation under IPCC SRES scenarios to watershed-basin scale in an arid region in India. The effectiveness of these regression approaches is evaluated through application to downscale the predictand for the Pichola lake region in Rajasthan state in India, which is considered to be a climatically sensitive region. The predictor variables are extracted from (1) the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis dataset for the period 1948–2000, and (2) the simulations from the third-generation Canadian Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3) for emission scenarios A1B, A2, B1 and COMMIT for the period 2001–2100. The selection of important predictor variables becomes a crucial issue for developing downscaling models since reanalysis data are based on wide range of meteorological measurements and observations. Direct regression was found to yield better performance among all other regression techniques explored in the present study. The results of downscaling models using both approaches show that precipitation is likely to increase in future for A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, whereas no trend is discerned with the COMMIT.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural ResourcesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207