Adjustment of global gridded precipitation for systematic bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic biases in gauge‐based measurement of precipitation can be substantial. Of the sources of bias, wind‐induced undercatch of solid precipitation is by far the largest. A methodology for producing gridded mean monthly catch ratios (CRs) for the adjustment of wind‐induced undercatch and wetting losses is developed, which is suitable for application to continental or global gridded precipitation products. The adjustments for wind‐induced solid precipitation were estimated using gauge type‐specific regression equations from the recent World Meteorological Organization Solid Precipitation Measurement Intercomparison. Wind‐induced undercatch of liquid precipitation and wetting losses were estimated using methods employed in previous global bias adjustment efforts. Due to the unique nature of Canada's precipitation measurement network, the Canadian adjustments were determined using more detailed information than for the rest of the domain, and are therefore expected to be more reliable. The gridded gauge adjustment products are designed to be applicable both to climatological estimates and to individual years during the 1979 through 1998 reference period. Application of the CRs to an existing precipitation product yielded an increase in mean annual global terrestrial precipitation of 11.7%. As compared with recent (but more localized) studies that used a similar method to account for wind‐induced catch deficiencies, our estimates of wind‐induced undercatch are 1.6–7.9% higher on a mean annual basis. Compared to a previous global precipitation bias adjustment effort, our adjusted data set results on average in slightly greater warm season and lower cold season precipitation increases, greater precipitation increases over North America, and lower precipitation increases over Eurasia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".