MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027469749 · doi:10.1029/2005gl024057

Bias corrections of long‐term (1973–2004) daily precipitation data over the northern regions

2005· article· en· W2027469749 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

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationSnowEnvironmental scienceClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesLatitudeArcticMeteorologyGeographyGeologyOceanographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A consistent daily bias correction procedure was applied at 4802 stations over high latitude regions (North of 45°N) to quantify the precipitation gauge measurement biases of wind‐induced undercatch, wetting losses, and trace amount of precipitation for the last 30 years. These corrections have increased the gauge‐measured monthly precipitation significantly by up to 22 mm for winter months, and slightly by about 5 mm during summer season. Relatively, the correction factors (CF) are small in summer (10%), and very large in winter (80–120%) because of the increased effect of wind on gauge undercatch of snowfall. The CFs also vary over space particularly in snowfall season. Significant CF differences were found across the USA/Canada borders mainly due to differences in catch efficiency between the national gauges. Bias corrections generally enhance monthly precipitation trends by 5–20%. These results point to a need to review our current understanding of the Arctic fresh water budget and its change.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.241 · 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