MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3163598901 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-3246

Reliability of global gridded precipitation products in assessing extremes

2021· article· en· W3163598901 on OpenAlexaff
Chandra Rupa Rajulapati, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Martyn Clark, Saman Razavi, Guoqiang Tang, John W. Pomeroy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationClimatologyEnvironmental scienceMagnitude (astronomy)Spatial variabilitySpatial distributionAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing extreme precipitation events is of high importance to hydrological risk assessment, decision making, and adaptation strategies. Global gridded precipitation products, constructed by combining various data sources such as precipitation gauge observations, atmospheric reanalyses and satellite estimates, can be used to estimate extreme precipitation events. Although these global precipitation products are widely used, there has been limited work to examine how well these products represent the magnitude and frequency of extreme precipitation. In this work, the five most widely used global precipitation datasets (MSWEP, CFSR, CPC, PERSIANN-CDR and WFDEI) are compared to each other and to GHCN-daily surface observations. The spatial variability of extreme precipitation events and the discrepancy amongst datasets in predicting precipitation return levels (such as 100- and 1000-year) were evaluated for the time period 1979-2017. The behaviour of extremes, that is the frequency and magnitude of extreme precipitation, was quantified using indices of the heaviness of the upper tail of the probability distribution. Two parameterizations of the upper tail, the power and stretched-exponential, were used to reveal the probabilistic behaviour of extremes. The analysis shows strong spatial variability in the frequency and magnitude of precipitation extremes as estimated from the upper tails of the probability distributions. This spatial variability is similar to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. The predicted 100- and 1000-year return levels differ substantially amongst the gridded products, and the level of discrepancy varies regionally, with large differences in Africa and South America and small differences in North America and Europe. The results from this work reveal the shortcomings of global precipitation products in representing extremes. The work shows that there is no single global product that performs best for all regions and climates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→