Evaluation of Total Precipitable Water from CRCM4 using the NVAP-MEaSUREs Dataset and ERA-Interim Reanalysis Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fourth-generation Canadian Regional Climate Model’s (CRCM4) precipitable water is evaluated and compared with observational data and ERA-Interim reanalysis data over five Canadian basins with simulations driven by ERA-Interim (two) and global climate models (two). Considering the 22 years of data available in the observations, we analyze precipitable water’s behaviour through its annual cycle, its daily distribution, and its annual daily maxima. For the simulations driven by reanalyses, differences in annual daily maximum values and their correlations with observations are examined. In general, the values for precipitable water simulated by CRCM4 are similar to those observed, and the model reproduces both the interannual and inter-basin variabilities. The simulation at 15 km resolution produces higher extreme values than simulations performed at 45 km resolution and higher than the observations taken at coarser resolution (1°), without much influence on the mean behaviour. Some underestimation is found with the simulation driven by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis Model, version 3, a sign of a cold and dry bias, whereas the run driven by the European Centre Hamburg Model, version 5, is much closer to the observations, pointing to the importance of closely considering the regional–global model combination. Overall, CRCM4's ability to reproduce the major characteristics of observed precipitable water makes it a possible tool for providing precipitable water data that could serve as a basis for probable maximum precipitation and probable maximum flood studies at the basin scale.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".