High-Resolution (2.5 km) Ensemble Precipitation Analysis across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Consistent and continuous fields provided by precipitation analyses are valuable for hydrometeorological applications and land data assimilation modeling, among others. Providing uncertainty estimates is a logical step in the analysis development, and a consistent approach to reach this objective is the production of an ensemble analysis. In the present study, a 6-h High-Resolution Ensemble Precipitation Analysis (HREPA) was developed for the domain covering Canada and the northern part of the contiguous United States. The data assimilation system is the same as the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) and is based on optimal interpolation (OI). Precipitation from the Canadian national 2.5-km atmospheric prediction system constitutes the background field of the analysis, while at-site records and radar quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) compose the observation datasets. By using stochastic perturbations, multiple observations and background field random realizations were generated to subsequently feed the data assimilation system and provide 24 HREPA members plus one control run. Based on one summer and one winter experiment, HREPA capabilities in terms of bias and skill were verified against at-site observations for different climatic regions. The results indicated HREPA’s reliability and skill for almost all types of precipitation events in winter, and for precipitation of medium intensity in summer. For both seasons, HREPA displayed resolution and sharpness. The overall good performance of HREPA and the lack of ensemble precipitation analysis (PA) at such spatiotemporal resolution in the literature motivate further investigations on transitional seasons and more advanced perturbation approaches.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".