Quantifying the Changing Nature of the Winter Season Precipitation Phase from 1849 to 2017 in Downtown Toronto (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred and sixty–nine years of weather station data were analyzed to quantify the changing nature of the winter season precipitation phase in the downtown area of Toronto (Canada). The precipitation variables examined were rainfall, snowfall water equivalent, total precipitation, rain days, snow days, and precipitation days. From these precipitation variables, three precipitation phase metrics were constructed for further analysis: the fraction of total precipitation that fell as snow, the fraction of precipitation days that recorded snow, and finally, the precipitation phase index (PPI) derived from comparing the rainfall to the snowfall water equivalent. Snowfall and snow days were decreasing at the most significant rate over this time period, and although rain days were increasing, total precipitation and precipitation days were also decreasing at a statistically significant rate. All three precipitation phase metrics suggest that winters are becoming less snowy in Toronto’s urban center. We also looked at trends and changes in average winter season temperatures to explore correlations between warming temperatures and changes in the winter season precipitation phase. Of the three precipitation phase metrics considered, the ratio of snow days to precipitation days recorded the strongest time series trend and the strongest correlation with warming temperatures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".