MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3185639266 · doi:10.5194/essd-2020-303

EMDNA: Ensemble Meteorological Dataset for North America

2020· article· en· W3185639266 on OpenAlexafffund
Guoqiang Tang, Martyn Clark, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Andrew J. Newman, Andrew W. Wood, Dominique Brunet, Paul H. Whitfield

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCanmore Museum and Geoscience CentreUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGlobal Water Futures
KeywordsProbabilistic logicPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Ensemble forecastingBayesian probabilityMeteorologyComputer scienceClimatologyStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Probabilistic methods are very useful to estimate the spatial variability in meteorological conditions (e.g., spatial patterns of precipitation and temperature across large domains). In ensemble probabilistic methods, equally plausible ensemble members are used to approximate the probability distribution, hence uncertainty, of a spatially distributed meteorological variable conditioned on the available information. The ensemble can be used to evaluate the impact of the uncertainties in a myriad of applications. This study develops the Ensemble Meteorological Dataset for North America (EMDNA). EMDNA has 100 members with daily precipitation amount, mean daily temperature, and daily temperature range at 0.1° spatial resolution from 1979 to 2018, derived from a fusion of station observations and reanalysis model outputs. The station data used in EMDNA are from a serially complete dataset for North America (SCDNA) that fills gaps in precipitation and temperature measurements using multiple strategies. Outputs from three reanalysis products are regridded, corrected, and merged using the Bayesian Model Averaging. Optimal Interpolation (OI) is used to merge station- and reanalysis-based estimates. EMDNA estimates are generated based on OI estimates and spatiotemporally correlated random fields. Evaluation results show that (1) the merged reanalysis estimates outperform raw reanalysis estimates, particularly in high latitudes and mountainous regions; (2) the OI estimates are more accurate than the reanalysis and station-based regression estimates, with the most notable improvement for precipitation occurring in sparsely gauged regions; and (3) EMDNA estimates exhibit good performance according to the diagrams and metrics used for probabilistic evaluation. We also discuss the limitations of the current framework and highlight that persistent efforts are needed to further develop probabilistic methods and ensemble datasets. Overall, EMDNA is expected to be useful for hydrological and meteorological applications in North America. The whole dataset and a teaser dataset (a small subset of EMDNA for easy download and preview) are available at https://doi.org/10.20383/101.0275 (Tang et al., 2020a).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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