A Comparison of Two Approaches for Generating Spatial Models of Growing-Season Variables for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study produced annual spatial models (or grids) of 27 growing-season variables for Canada that span two centuries (1901–2100). Temporal gaps in the availability of daily climate data—the typical and preferred source for calculating growing-season variables—necessitated the use of two approaches for generating these growing-season grids. The first approach, used only for the 1950–2010 period, employed a computer script to directly calculate the suite of growing-season variables from existing daily climate grids. Since daily grids were not available for the remaining years, a second approach, which employed a machine-learning method called boosted regression trees (BRT), was used to generate statistical models that related each growing-season variable to a suite of climate and water-related predictors. These BRT models were used to generate grids of growing-season variables for each year of the study period, including the 1950–2010 period to allow comparison between the two approaches. Mean absolute errors associated with the BRT-based grids were approximately 30% higher than those associated with the daily-based grids. The two approaches were also compared by calculating trends in growing-season length over the 1950–2010 period. Significant increases in growing-season length were obtained for nearly all ecozones across Canada, and there were no significant differences in the trends obtained from the two approaches. Although the daily-based approach tended to have lower errors, the BRT approach produced comparable map products that should be valuable for periods and regions for which daily data are not available.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".