SPATIOTEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF HUMIDITY ACROSS THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES AND SOUTHERN CANADA USING REGIONAL NETWORKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this dissertation was to show that there is now enough observed humidity data available so that estimates of humidity, along with their necessary assumptions, can be replaced by measured humidity data. The range of applications that depend on humidity data is huge, ranging from water use efficiency of plants and plant stress to human health and agricultural practices. Biases due to the use of estimated humidity can be expected to have short and long impacts, decreasing the accuracy and precision of these, and many other, applications. Data from local, regional, and national observation networks was gathered, and custom quality control routines were written to remove bad data points from over 45000 stations, leaving 12533 usable stations. While still not at the same number of observations as temperature or precipitation, this number is nearly ten times as high as two decades ago. The work I performed consists of three major components, corresponding to the three main chapters of this dissertation. In chapter one, I describe data sources and quality control methods, along with some basic statistics of humidity, describing which geographic variables often used to predict temperature and precipitation can be used to do the same for humidity. Chapter two defines specific diurnal patterns (or “types”) of dew point across the United States, including their attributes, causes, and potential influences. Chapter three analyzes biases in evapotranspiration, heat indices, and relative humidity levels that are a direct result of using estimated humidity data. Chapter four discusses contributions this work makes to the scientific community, and potential further research to build on what is presented here. While it may seem that the science of humidity should be well beyond data gathering and bias analysis, the fact remains that humidity is still very commonly estimated through the use of minimum temperature, and diurnal changes in dew point are often ignored. My hope is that this work makes a dent in often deeply entrenched practices, leading others to make the effort to incorporate measured humidity data into their work and study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".