Factorial inferential grid grouping and representativeness analysis for a systematic selection of representative grids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A factorial inferential grid grouping and representativeness analysis (FIGGRA) approach is developed to achieve a systematic selection of representative grids in large‐scale climate change impact assessment and adaptation (LSCCIAA) studies and other fields of Earth and space sciences. FIGGRA is applied to representative‐grid selection for temperature (Tas) and precipitation (Pr) over the Loess Plateau (LP) to verify methodological effectiveness. FIGGRA is effective at and outperforms existing grid‐selection approaches (e.g., self‐organizing maps) in multiple aspects such as clustering similar grids, differentiating dissimilar grids, and identifying representative grids for both Tas and Pr over LP. In comparison with Pr, the lower spatial heterogeneity and higher spatial discontinuity of Tas over LP lead to higher within‐group similarity, lower between‐group dissimilarity, lower grid grouping effectiveness, and higher grid representativeness; the lower interannual variability of the spatial distributions of Tas results in lower impacts of the interannual variability on the effectiveness of FIGGRA. For LP, the spatial climatic heterogeneity is the highest in January for Pr and in October for Tas; it decreases from spring, autumn, summer to winter for Tas and from summer, spring, autumn to winter for Pr. Two parameters, i.e., the statistical significance level (α) and the minimum number of grids in every climate zone (Nmin), and their joint effects are significant for the effectiveness of FIGGRA; normalization of a nonnormal climate‐variable distribution is helpful for the effectiveness only for Pr. For FIGGRA‐based LSCCIAA studies, a low value of Nmin is recommended for both Pr and Tas, and a high and medium value of α for Pr and Tas, respectively.
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 | 0.031 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".