MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079427219 · doi:10.1175/ei-d-14-0024.1

Development and Evaluation of Statistical Downscaling Models for Monthly Precipitation

2014· article· en· W2079427219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aneesh Goly, Ramesh S. V. Teegavarapu, Arpita Mondal

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Interactions · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndo-US Science and Technology Forum
KeywordsDownscalingEnvironmental scienceGeopotential heightPrincipal component analysisClimatologyModel output statisticsLinear regressionWind speedPrecipitationCanonical correlationMeteorologyStatistical modelStatisticsMathematicsNumerical weather predictionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several statistical downscaling models have been developed in the past couple of decades to assess the hydrologic impacts of climate change by projecting the station-scale hydrological variables from large-scale atmospheric variables simulated by general circulation models (GCMs). This paper presents and compares different statistical downscaling models that use multiple linear regression (MLR), positive coefficient regression (PCR), stepwise regression (SR), and support vector machine (SVM) techniques for estimating monthly rainfall amounts in the state of Florida. Mean sea level pressure, air temperature, geopotential height, specific humidity, U wind, and V wind are used as the explanatory variables/predictors in the downscaling models. Data for these variables are obtained from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP–NCAR) reanalysis dataset and the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) Coupled Global Climate Model, version 3 (CGCM3) GCM simulations. The principal component analysis (PCA) and fuzzy c-means clustering method (FCM) are used as part of downscaling model to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset and identify the clusters in the data, respectively. Evaluation of the performances of the models using different error and statistical measures indicates that the SVM-based model performed better than all the other models in reproducing most monthly rainfall statistics at 18 sites. Output from the third-generation CGCM3 GCM for the A1B scenario was used for future projections. For the projection period 2001–10, MLR was used to relate variables at the GCM and NCEP grid scales. Use of MLR in linking the predictor variables at the GCM and NCEP grid scales yielded better reproduction of monthly rainfall statistics at most of the stations (12 out of 18) compared to those by spatial interpolation technique used in earlier studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth InteractionsSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207