MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130678039 · doi:10.14430/arctic609

Climatic Variability in the Kuparuk Region, North-central Alaska: Optimizing Spatial and Temporal Intepolation in a Sparse Observation Network

2003· article· en· W2130678039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. I. Shiklomanov, Frederick E. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Multivariate interpolationDigital elevation modelElevation (ballistics)Environmental scienceSpatial variabilityRemote sensingSpatial distributionKrigingMeteorologyGeologyGeographyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air temperature fields are required as input to spatial models in ecology, geocryology, and biogeochemistry. Air temperature data from a sparse, irregular meteorological network in the Kuparuk region of north-central Alaska were interpolated spatially and temporally to provide a 13-year (1987-1999) series of thawing degree-day fields at 1 km² resolution. Procedures involved standardizing diverse temperature records and applying topographically and climatologically aided interpolation, using station data and digital elevation models, to incorporate the effects of local topography. The accuracy of the interpolation procedures was assessed using cross validation. Considering the number of data points used for interpolation, their distribution, and the size of the area, the combination of climatologically assisted and topographically informed spatial interpolation procedures provides adequate representation of the annual degree-day fields for the Kuparuk region. Spatially integrated mean absolute error does not exceed 3% in any year. To investigate the spatial distribution of interpolation uncertainties, the cross-validation errors obtained at each station for each year were interpolated spatially to a regular 1 × 1 km grid consistent with the degree-day fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207