MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308702695 · doi:10.3390/rs14225677

Global Terrestrial Water Storage Reconstruction Using Cyclostationary Empirical Orthogonal Functions (1979–2020)

2022· article· en· W4308702695 on OpenAlexaff
Hrishikesh A. Chandanpurkar, B. D. Hamlington, J. T. Reager

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEmpirical orthogonal functionsEnvironmental scienceClimatologyEarth system scienceCyclostationary processPrecipitationMeteorologyGeologyComputer scienceGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrestrial water storage (TWS) anomalies derived from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission have been useful for several earth science applications, ranging from global earth system science studies to regional water management. However, the relatively short record of GRACE has limited its use in understanding the climate-driven interannual-to-decadal variability in TWS. Targeting these timescales, we used the novel method of cyclostationary empirical orthogonal functions (CSEOFs) and the common modes of variability of TWS with precipitation and temperature to reconstruct the TWS record of 1979–2020. Using the same common modes of variability, we also provide a realistic, time-varying uncertainty estimate of the reconstructed TWS. The interannual variability in the resulting TWS record is consistent in space and time, and links the global variations in TWS to the regional ones. In particular, we highlight improvements in the representation of ENSO variability when compared to other available TWS reconstructions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207