Spatial Models of Adjusted Precipitation for Canada at Varying Time Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents spatial models (i.e., thin-plate spatially continuous spline surfaces) of adjusted precipitation for Canada at daily, pentad (5 day), and monthly time scales from 1900 to 2015. The input data include manual observations from 3346 stations that were adjusted previously to correct for snow water equivalent (SWE) conversion and various gauge-related issues. In addition to the 42 331 models for daily total precipitation and 1392 monthly total precipitation models, 8395 pentad models were developed for the first time, depicting mean precipitation for 73 pentads annually. For much of Canada, mapped precipitation values from this study were higher than those from the corresponding unadjusted models (i.e., models fitted to the unadjusted data), reflecting predominantly the effects of the adjustments to the input data. Error estimates compared favorably to the corresponding unadjusted models. For example, root generalized cross-validation (GCV) estimate (a measure of predictive error) at the daily time scale was 3.6 mm on average for the 1960–2003 period as compared with 3.7 mm for the unadjusted models over the same period. There was a dry bias in the predictions relative to recorded values of between 1% and 6.7% of the average precipitations amounts for all time scales. Mean absolute predictive errors of the daily, pentad, and monthly models were 2.5 mm (52.7%), 0.9 mm (37.4%), and 11.2 mm (19.3%), respectively. In general, the model skill was closely tied to the density of the station network. The current adjusted models are available in grid form at ~2–10-km resolutions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".