Quality Control of Surface Wind Observations in Northeastern North America. Part I: Data Management Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A quality control (QC) process has been developed and implemented on an observational database of surface wind speed and direction in northeastern North America. The database combines data from 526 land stations and buoys spread across eastern Canada and five adjacent northeastern U.S. states. It combines the observations of three different institutions spanning from 1953 to 2010. The quality of these initial data varies among source institutions. The current QC process is divided into two parts. Part I, described herein, is focused on issues related to data management: issues stemming from data transcription and collection; differences in measurement units and recording times; detection of sequences of duplicated data; unification of calm and true north criteria for wind direction; and detection of physically unrealistic data measurements. As a result, around ~0.1% of wind speed and wind direction records have been identified as erroneous and deleted. The most widespread error type is related to duplications within the same station, but the error type that entails more erroneous data belongs to duplications among different sites. Additionally, the process of data compilation and standardization has had an impact on more than 90% of the records. A companion paper (Part II) deals with a group of errors that are conceptually different, and is focused on detecting measurement errors that relate to temporal consistency and biases in wind speed and direction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".