Quality Control of Surface Wind Observations in Northeastern North America. Part II: Measurement Errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A quality control (QC) process has been developed and applied to an observational database of surface wind speed and wind direction in northeastern North America. The database combines data from three datasets of different initial quality, including a total of 526 land stations and buoys distributed over the provinces of eastern Canada and five adjacent northeastern U.S. states. The data span from 1953 to 2010. The first part of the QC deals with data management issues and is developed in a companion paper. Part II, presented herein, is focused on the detection of measurement errors and deals with low-variability errors, like the occurrence of unrealistically long calms, and high-variability problems, like rapid changes in wind speed; some types of biases in wind speed and wind direction are also considered. About 0.5% (0.16%) of wind speed (wind direction) records have been flagged. Additionally, 15.87% (1.73%) of wind speed (wind direction) data have been corrected. The most pervasive error type in terms of affected sites and erased data corresponds to unrealistic low wind speeds (89% of sites affected with 0.35% records removed). The amount of detected and corrected/removed records in Part II (~9%) is approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of Part I. Both management and measurement errors are shown to have a discernible impact on the statistics of the database.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".