Homogenization and Trend Analysis of Canadian Near-Surface Wind Speeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Near-surface wind speeds recorded at 117 stations in Canada for the period from 1953 to 2006 were analyzed in this study. First, metadata and a logarithmic wind profile were used to adjust hourly wind speeds measured at nonstandard anemometer heights to the standard 10-m level. Monthly mean near-surface wind speed series were then derived and subjected to a statistical homogeneity test, with homogeneous monthly mean geostrophic wind (geowind) speed series being used as reference series. Homogenized monthly mean near-surface wind speed series were obtained by adjusting all significant mean shifts, using the results of the statistical test and modeling along with all available metadata, and were used to assess the long-term trends. This study shows that station relocation and anemometer height change are the main causes for discontinuities in the near-surface wind speed series, followed by instrumentation problems or changes, and observing environment changes. It also shows that the effects of artificial mean shifts on the results of trend analysis are remarkable, and that the homogenized near-surface wind speed series show good spatial consistency of trends, which are in agreement with long-term trends estimated from independent datasets, such as surface winds in the United States and cyclone activity indices and ocean wave heights in the region. These indicate success in the homogenization of the wind data. During the period analyzed, the homogenized near-surface wind speed series show significant decreases throughout western Canada and most parts of southern Canada (except the Maritimes) in all seasons, with significant increases in the central Canadian Arctic in all seasons and in the Maritimes in spring and autumn.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".