Assessment of Various Statistical Downscaling Methods for Downscaling Precipitation in Florida
Bibliographic record
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). GCMs have a good chance to capture the large-scale circulation patterns and correctly model smoothly varying fields such as surface pressure, but it is extremely unlikely that these models properly reproduce nonsmooth fields such as precipitation. This study compares five statistically downscaling models: multiple linear regression (MLR), positive coefficient regression (PCR), stepwise regression (SWR), support vector machine (SVM), and bias-correction spatial disaggregation (BCSD) for estimation of rainfall in the state of Florida, USA. The performance of the models is evaluated using various performance measures, and it was found that the SVM model performed better than all the other models in reproducing most monthly rainfall statistics at 18 locations. Output from the third-generation Canadian Global Climate Model (CGCM3) GCM for A1B scenario was used for future precipitation projections.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".