Evaluation of Precipitation Indices over North America from Various Configurations of Regional Climate Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the evaluation of simulations from two new Canadian regional climate models (RCMs), CanRCM4 and CRCM5, with a focus on the models’ skill in simulating daily precipitation indices and the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). The evaluation was carried out over the past two decades using several sets of gridded observations that partially cover North America. The new Canadian RCMs were also compared with four reanalysis products and six other RCMs. The different configurations of the Canadian RCM simulations also permit evaluation of the impact of different spatial resolutions, atmospheric drivers, and nudging conditions. The results from the new Canadian models show some improvement in precipitation characteristics over the previous Canadian RCM (CRCM4), but these differ with the seasons. For winter, CanRCM4 and CRCM5 have better skill than most other models over all of North America. For the summer, CRCM5 0.44° performs best over the United States, while CRCM4 has the best skill over Canada. Good skill is exhibited by CanRCM4 and CRCM4 in simulating the 6-month SPI over the Prairies and the western US Corn Belt. In general, differences are small between runs with or without large-scale spectral nudging; differences are small when different boundary conditions are used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".