Surface Temperature Probability Distributions in the NARCCAP Hindcast Experiment: Evaluation Methodology, Metrics, and Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Methodology is developed and applied to evaluate the characteristics of daily surface temperature distributions in a six-member regional climate model (RCM) hindcast experiment conducted as part of the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP). A surface temperature dataset combining gridded station observations and reanalysis is employed as the primary reference. Temperature biases are documented across the distribution, focusing on the median and tails. Temperature variance is generally higher in the RCMs than reference, while skewness is reasonably simulated in winter over the entire domain and over the western United States and Canada in summer. Substantial differences in skewness exist over the southern and eastern portions of the domain in summer. Four examples with observed long-tailed probability distribution functions (PDFs) are selected for model comparison. Long cold tails in the winter are simulated with high fidelity for Seattle, Washington, and Chicago, Illinois. In summer, the RCMs are unable to capture the distribution width and long warm tails for the coastal location of Los Angeles, California, while long cold tails are poorly realized for Houston, Texas. The evaluation results are repeated using two additional reanalysis products adjusted by station observations and two standard reanalysis products to assess the impact of observational uncertainty. Results are robust when compared with those obtained using the adjusted reanalysis products as reference, while larger uncertainties are introduced when standard reanalysis is employed as reference. Model biases identified in this work will allow for further investigation into associated mechanisms and implications for future simulations of temperature extremes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".