Digitizing observations from the 1861–1875 Met Office Daily Weather Reports using citizen scientist volunteers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We describe the transcription and quality control processes for rescuing around 570,000 sub‐daily and daily weather observations which were recorded in the UK Met Office Daily Weather Reports during the 1861–1875 period. These data are from the start of coordinated weather observations and were collected with the aim of making the first‐ever weather forecasts. The observations were rescued thanks to 3500 volunteers and include sub‐daily sea‐level pressure, dry and wet bulb temperatures, daily maximum and minimum temperatures, and daily rainfall amounts from 70 different locations across Western Europe, and one in Canada. We highlight how these observations will be used to fill gaps in existing pressure and temperature datasets and use two case studies to show how the pressure observations will likely better constrain the atmospheric circulation during two severe storms. We also compare a sub‐sample of the newly rescued observations with data that were previously digitized for a small number of locations for the same dates, finding good agreement in general, although some discrepancies remain.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it