Comparison of interpolation methods for estimating spatial distribution of precipitation in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this study, different interpolation techniques in a geographical information system (GIS) environment are analysed and compared for estimating the spatial distribution of precipitation in the province of Ontario, Canada. A high‐resolution regional climate modelling system [Providing Regional Climates for Impacts Studies (PRECIS)] is used to simulate the present (1961–1990) and future (2071–2100) precipitation events for 12 meteorological stations over Ontario. The results verify that for the present case PRECIS simulates well the precipitation events when compared with observed data. The future precipitation events can be projected after the validation of PRECIS. Six interpolation methods are then used to generate spatial distribution of precipitation based on the projections of future precipitation of 12 meteorological stations; they include inverse distance weighting (IDW), global polynomial interpolation (GPI), local polynomial interpolation (LPI), radial basis functions (RBF), ordinary kriging (OK), and universal kriging (UK). Cross‐validation is applied to evaluate the accuracy of interpolation methods in terms of the root mean square error (RMSE). The results indicate that LPI is the optimal method with the least RMSE for interpolating the PRECIS precipitation. LPI is then used to analyse spatial variations of the average annual precipitation for the period of 2071–2100 over Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".