Uncertainty in homogenized daily temperatures and derived indices of extremes illustrated using parallel observations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Parallel daily temperature observations at site pairs over a 5‐year period at 88 locations across Canada were used to derive and validate adjustments required during homogenization process. The data was first ‘aligned’ for compatible observing times at 12 locations (other locations do not have this problem). Then the homogenization adjustments were obtained using three procedures (Seasonal Bias, Monthly Interpolation and Quantile Matching) and two approaches (using parallel and neighbours observations). The root mean squared error (RMSE) between the daily temperatures of site 1 and site 2, and the percentage of days within 0.5 °C (PD05) between site 1 and site 2 were used to assess the uncertainty in the mean and extreme values, respectively. The instruments were not necessarily collocated as the distance between the two observing sites varied from 0 to 30 km. The results confirm that it is necessary to apply adjustments for known issues first, such as a different observing time. They also show that when a shift between site 1 and site 2 (defined by the annual mean of the daily temperature differences) is small [<0.25 standard deviation (SD)], the adjustments do not reduce the error between site 1 and site 2. When the shift size is between 0.25 and 0.5 SD, the adjustments derived from parallel observations help to reduce the uncertainty. When the shift is large (>0.5 SD), both approaches reduce the error, although the adjustments derived from parallel observations provide better results as compared to those computed from neighbour observations. The results also indicate that Quantile Matching adjustments can provide a better estimate of the adjustments than the other methods evaluated to indices of extreme temperature computed from the adjusted daily values; however, highly correlated neighbours are needed when the adjustments are based on neighbours observations.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".