Evaluation of CORDEX-Arctic daily precipitation and temperature-based climate indices over Canadian Arctic land areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the evaluation of daily precipitation and temperature climate indices and extremes simulated by an ensemble of 12 Regional Climate Model (RCM) simulations from the ARCTIC-CORDEX experiment with surface observations in the Canadian Arctic from the Adjusted Historical Canadian Climate Dataset. Five global reanalyses products (ERA-Interim, JRA55, MERRA, CFSR and GMFD) are also included in the evaluation to assess their potential for RCM evaluation in data sparse regions. The study evaluated the means and annual anomaly distributions of indices over the 1980–2004 dataset overlap period. The results showed that RCM and reanalysis performance varied with the climate variables being evaluated. Most RCMs and reanalyses were able to simulate well climate indices related to mean air temperature and hot extremes over most of the Canadian Arctic, with the exception of the Yukon region where models displayed the largest biases related to topographic effects. Overall performance was generally poor for indices related to cold extremes. Likewise, only a few RCM simulations and reanalyses were able to provide realistic simulations of precipitation extreme indicators. The multi-reanalysis ensemble provided superior results to individual datasets for climate indicators related to mean air temperature and hot extremes, but not for other indicators. These results support the use of reanalyses as reference datasets for the evaluation of RCM mean air temperature and hot extremes over northern Canada, but not for cold extremes and precipitation indices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".