Representing Extremes in a Daily Gridded Precipitation Analysis over the United States: Impacts of Station Density, Resolution, and Gridding Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study focuses on errors in extreme precipitation in gridded station products incurred during the upscaling of station measurements to a grid, referred to as representativeness errors. Gridded precipitation station analyses are valuable observational data sources with a wide variety of applications, including model validation. The representativeness errors associated with two gridding methods are presented, consistent with either a point or areal average interpretation of model output, and it is shown that they differ significantly (up to 30%). An experiment is conducted to determine the errors associated with station density, through repeated gridding of station data within the United States using subsequently fewer stations. Two distinct error responses to reduced station density are found, which are attributed to differences in the spatial homogeneity of precipitation distributions. The error responses characterize the eastern and western United States, which are respectively more and less homogeneous. As the station density decreases, the influence of stations farther from the analysis point increases, and therefore, if the distributions are inhomogeneous in space, the analysis point is influenced by stations with very different precipitation distributions. Finally, ranges of potential percent representativeness errors of the median and extreme precipitation across the United States are created for high-resolution (0.25°) and low-resolution areal averaged (0.9° lat × 1.25° lon) precipitation fields. For example, the range of the representativeness errors is estimated, for annual extreme precipitation, to be from +16% to −12% in the low-resolution data, when station density is 5 stations per 0.9° lat × 1.25° lon grid box.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".