Thermal regime metrics and quantifying their uncertainty for North American streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding and characterizing thermal regimes is gaining popularity, but there has been little assessment of the sources and magnitudes of uncertainty among different thermal metrics. Understanding how the quantity of data influence estimates of metrics and the characterization of thermal regime is critical to resource management. We examine the influence of record length on the uncertainty of estimation for commonly used thermal metrics including mean annual maximum and minimum, timing of the annual maximum and minimum, mean annual temperature range, mean weekly maximum temperature, July maximum, minimum, and range. We selected 19 sites from U.S. Geological Survey hydrometric station network to represent stations with both small and large drainage areas across the ecoregions of the contiguous United States with at least 20 years of daily stream temperature data. We also selected 54 sites from Water Survey of Canada's hydrometric network with at least 7 years of sub‐daily data for the province of Ontario. Randomizing a progressively increasing set of years used to calculate estimates of each metric provided the percentile confidence bands that were compared with various thresholds of acceptable certainty. Bootstrap confidence bands quickly decreased in width with increasing record length and approached an acceptable level at an average of 12 years for daily data metrics. Metrics calculated using the sub‐daily data required approximately 3 years of data. The timing of annual minimum and maximum temperatures required the greatest amount of data to reduce bias to an acceptable level.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".