MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883837588 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2018.1474728

Ten Years of Science Based on the Canadian Precipitation Analysis: A CaPA System Overview and Literature Review

2018· article· en· W2883837588 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsManitoba HydroUniversity of ManitobaImpactEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydropowerPrecipitationProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceStrengths and weaknessesFlood mythEnvironmental resource managementMeteorologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Near real-time quantitative precipitation estimates are required for many applications including weather forecasting, flood forecasting, crop management, forest fire prevention, hydropower production, and dam safety. Since April 2011, such a product has been available from Environment and Climate Change Canada for a domain covering all North America. This product, known as the Regional Deterministic Precipitation Analysis, is generated using the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) system. Although it was designed for near real-time use, an archive of pre-operational and operational products going back to 2002 is now available and has been used in numerous studies. This paper presents a review of the various scientific publications that have reported either using or evaluating CaPA products. We find that the product is used with success both for scientific studies and operational applications and compares well with other precipitation datasets. We summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the system as reported in the literature. We also provide users with information on how the system works, how it has changed over time, and how the archived and near real-time analyses can be accessed and used. We finally briefly report on recent and upcoming improvements to the product based, in part, on the results of this literature review.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it