A Synoptic Weather Typing Approach to Simulate Daily Rainfall and Extremes in Ontario, Canada: Potential for Climate Change Projections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An automated synoptic weather typing and stepwise cumulative logit/nonlinear regression analyses were employed to simulate the occurrence and quantity of daily rainfall events. The synoptic weather typing was developed using principal component analysis, an average linkage clustering procedure, and discriminant function analysis to identify the weather types most likely to be associated with daily rainfall events for the four selected river basins in Ontario. Within-weather-type daily rainfall simulation models comprise a two-step process: (i) cumulative logit regression to predict the occurrence of daily rainfall events, and (ii) using probability of the logit regression, a nonlinear regression procedure to simulate daily rainfall quantities. The rainfall simulation models were validated using an independent dataset, and the results showed that the models were successful at replicating the occurrence and quantity of daily rainfall events. For example, the relative operating characteristics score is greater than 0.97 for rainfall events with daily rainfall ≥10 or ≥25 mm, for both model development and validation. For evaluation of daily rainfall quantity simulation models, four correctness classifications of excellent, good, fair, and poor were defined, based on the difference between daily rainfall observations and model simulations. Across four selected river basins, the percentage of excellent and good simulations for model development ranged from 62% to 84% (of 20 individuals, 16 cases ≥ 70%, 7 cases ≥ 80%); the corresponding percentage for model validation ranged from 50% to 76% (of 20 individuals, 15 cases ≥ 60%, 6 cases ≥ 70%).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".