On the Remapping Procedure of Daily Precipitation Statistics and Indices Used in Regional Climate Model Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gridded estimates of precipitation using both satellite and observational station data are regularly used as reference products in the evaluation of basic climate fields and derived indices as simulated by regional climate models (RCMs) over the current period. One of the issues encountered in RCM evaluation is the fact that RCMs and reference fields are usually on different grids and often at different horizontal resolutions. A proper RCM evaluation requires remapping on a common grid. For the climate indices or other derived fields, the remapping can be done in two ways: either as a first-step operation on the original field with the derived index computed on the final/common grid in a second step, or to compute first the climate index on the original grid before remapping or regridding it as a last-step operation on the final/common grid. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the two approaches affect the final field, thus contributing to one of the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) in Africa (CORDEX-Africa) goals of providing a benchmark framework for RCM evaluation over the West Africa monsoon area, using several daily precipitation indices. The results indicate the advantage of using the last-step remapping procedure, regardless of the mathematical method chosen for the remapping, in order to minimize errors in the indices under evaluation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".