Köppen versus the computer: comparing Köppen-Geiger and multivariate regression tree climate classifications in terms of climate homogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A global climate classification is defined using a multivariate regression tree (MRT). The MRT algorithm is automated, hierarchical, and rule-based, thus allowing a system of climate classes to be quickly defined and easily interpreted. Climate variables used in the MRT are restricted to those from the Köppen-Geiger classification system. The result is a set of classes that can be directly compared against those from the traditional system. The two climate classifications are compared at their 5, 13, and 30 class hierarchical levels in terms of climate homogeneity. Results indicate that both perform well in terms of identifying regions of homogeneous temperature variability, although the MRT still generally outperforms the Köppen-Geiger system. In terms of precipitation discrimination, the Köppen-Geiger classification performs poorly relative to the MRT. The data and algorithm implementation used in this study are freely available. Thus, the MRT climate classification offers instructors and students in the geosciences a simple instrument for exploring modern, computer-based climatological methods.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".