Not all speeds are created equal: investigating the predictability of statistically downscaled historical land surface winds over central Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A statistical downscaling approach based on multiple linear-regression is used to investigate the predictability of land surface winds over the Canadian prairies and Ontario. This study's model downscales mid-tropospheric predictors (wind components and speed, temperature, and geopotential height) from reanalysis products to predict historical wind observations at thirty-one airport-based weather surface stations in Canada. The model's performance is assessed as a function of: season; geographic location; averaging timescale of the wind statistics; and wind regime, as defined by how variable the vector wind is relative to its mean amplitude. Despite large differences in predictability characteristics between sites, several systematic results are observed. Consistent with recent studies, a strong anisotropy of predictability for vector quantities is observed, while some components are generally well predicted, others have no predictability. The predictability of mean quantities is greater on shorter averaging timescales. In general, the predictability of the surface wind speeds over the Canadian prairies and Ontario is poor; as is the predictability of sub-averaging timescale variability. These results and the relative predictability of vector and scalar wind quantities are interpreted with theoretically- and empirically-derived wind speed sensitivities to the resolved and unresolved variability in the vector winds. At most sites, and on longer averaging timescales, the scalar wind quantities are found to be highly sensitive to unresolved variability in the vector winds. These results demonstrate limitations to the statistical downscaling of wind speed and suggest that deterministic models which resolve the short-timescale variability may be necessary for successful predictions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".