MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385297189 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2023.109450

Heating degree day spatial datasets for Canada

2023· article· en· W4385297189 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather MacDonald, John Pedlar, Daniel W. McKenney, Kevin Lawrence, Kaitlin de Boer, Michael F. Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsHeating degree dayDegree (music)Degree dayEnvironmental scienceClimate changeStatisticsData setMean absolute errorClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyMathematicsMean squared errorEnergy consumptionGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heating degree days (HDD) represent a concise measure of heating energy requirements used to inform decision making about the impact of climate change on heating energy demand. This data paper presents spatial datasets of heating degree days (HDD) for Canada for two thirty-year periods, 1951-1980 and 1981-2010, using daily temperature gauge observations over these time periods. Stations with fewer than nine missing days in a year and greater than nine years of data over each thirty-year period were included, resulting in 1339 and 1679 stations for the 1951-1980 and 1981-2010 periods respectively. Mean absolute error (MAE) of the spatial models ranged from 124.2 Celsius degree days (C-days) for the 1951-1980 model (2.4% of the surface mean) to 137.6 C-days for the 1981-2010 model (2.7%). This note presents maps illustrating cross validation errors at a set of representative stations. The grids are available at ∼2 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207