MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027891055 · doi:10.1002/hyp.6084

Uncertainty analysis of statistical downscaling methods using Canadian Global Climate Model predictors

2006· article· en· W2027891055 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

VenueHydrological Processes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownscalingBootstrapping (finance)Confidence intervalStatisticsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationUncertainty analysisClimate modelClimatologyMeteorologyClimate changeMathematicsEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three downscaling models, namely the Statistical Down‐Scaling Model (SDSM), the Long Ashton Research Station Weather Generator (LARS‐WG) model and an artificial neural network (ANN) model, have been compared in terms of various uncertainty attributes exhibited in their downscaled results of daily precipitation, daily maximum and minimum temperature. The uncertainty attributes are described by the model errors and the 95% confidence intervals in the estimates of means and variances of downscaled data. The significance of those errors has been examined by suitable statistical tests at the 95% confidence level. The 95% confidence intervals in the estimates of means and variances of downscaled data have been estimated using the bootstrapping method and compared with the observed data. The study has been carried out using 40 years of observed and downscaled daily precipitation data and daily maximum and minimum temperature data, starting from 1961 to 2000. In all the downscaling experiments, the simulated predictors of the Canadian Global Climate Model (CGCM1) have been used. The uncertainty assessment results indicate that, in daily precipitation downscaling, the LARS‐WG model errors are significant at the 95% confidence level only in a very few months, the SDSM errors are significant in some months, and the ANN model errors are significant in almost all months of the year. In downscaling daily maximum and minimum temperature, the performance of all three models is similar in terms of model errors evaluation at the 95% confidence level. But, according to the evaluation of variability and uncertainty in the estimates of means and variances of downscaled precipitation and temperature, the performances of the LARS‐WG model and the SDSM are almost similar, whereas the ANN model performance is found to be poor in that consideration. Further assessment of those models, in terms of skewness and average dry‐spell length comparison between observed and downscaled daily precipitation, indicates that the downscaled daily precipitation skewness and average dry‐spell lengths of the LARS‐WG model and the SDSM are closer to the observed data, whereas the ANN model downscaled precipitation underestimated those statistics in all months. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.288 · 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