A metrics‐based analysis of seasonal daily precipitation and near‐surface temperature within seven Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare ensemble mean daily precipitation and near‐surface temperatures from regional climate model simulations over seven Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment domains for the winter and summer seasons. We use Taylor diagrams to show the domain‐wide pattern similarity between the model ensemble and the observational data sets. We use the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the University of Delaware gridded observations and ERA‐Interim reanalysis data as an additional observationally based estimate of historical climatology. Taylor diagrams determine the relative skill of the seven sets of simulations and quantify these results in terms of center pattern root‐mean square error and correlation coefficient. Results suggest that there is good agreement between the models and the CRU, in terms of their respective seasonal cycles, as shown in Taylor diagrams and bias plots. There is also good agreement between both gridded observation sets. In addition, downscaled ERA‐Interim precipitation is closer to observations than raw ERA‐Interim precipitation. Domains located in the low latitudes and those having high topography appear to have larger biases, especially precipitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".