MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081353580 · doi:10.3137/ao.430104

Evaluation of geo‐referenced grids of 1961–1990 Canadian temperature and precipitation normals

2005· article· en· W2081353580 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsPrecipitationElevation (ballistics)OrographyGeologyTerrainClimatologyInverse distance weightingMultivariate interpolationPhysical geographyMeteorologyGeographyCartographyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four sets of geo‐referenced grids of 1961–90 normals, or thirty‐year averages, of monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, and total precipitation are compared for the following areas of western Canada: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and south‐eastern British Columbia. The landscape varies from lowlands around Hudson Bay in the east and flat plains in the south, to moderate elevation hills and numerous lakes in the north, to a complex terrain of high mountains and deep valleys in the west. Interpolation methods used to create the grids range from a very simple technique ‐ Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) of closest neighbours, to more sophisticated statistical models ‐ ANUSPLIN (thin plate smoothing splines on geographic location and elevation) and SQUARE‐GRID (multivariate regression on elevation, distance from large water bodies and barriers, etc.), to even more complex hybrid systems ‐ PRISM (statistical regression, combined with physical models and expert knowledge). The main characteristics of each technique are discussed in detail, as they are often very good predictors of the accuracy of the ensuing gridpoint values. Based on the intercomparison of point and average values, as well as the verification of temperature with upper air soundings and precipitation with streamflow measurements, all grids, except SQUARE‐GRID for precipitation, produce very good results in the Prairies’ ecozone. Temperatures in most cases agree within 1°C and precipitation within several percent. PRISM, which was verified to model the Arctic inversion correctly, performs the best in winter in northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta, in particular, over the hills of northern Alberta (PRISM warmer), and most likely over low lying areas of the Nelson River Delta (PRISM colder). PRISM and ANUSPLIN can be recommended for the mountains of south‐eastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta. Both grids verify well, in both winter and summer, with upper air soundings for maximum temperature and station vertical profiles for minimum temperature. They are remarkably close to water balance estimates of precipitation computed from streamflow gauge measurements ‐ PRISM is slightly high and ANSUPLIN slightly low. Precipitation from IDW and SQUARE‐GRID are not satisfactory in the mountains; both severely underestimate precipitation by as much as 40%. IDW, which does not incorporate any orographic effects, is also too warm in the mountains. As expected, topography, physiography, and monitoring network issues are sources of major discrepancies among the grids. SQUARE‐GRID, besides using far fewer stations and a preprocessed dataset, also produced anomalous values, e.g., values of zero precipitation along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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