MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390841449 · doi:10.1002/gdj3.236

Digitizing observations from the 1861–1875 Met Office Daily Weather Reports using citizen scientist volunteers

2024· article· en· W4390841449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip M. Craig, Ed Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Data Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgeMet OfficeNational Centre for Atmospheric ScienceNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsStormEnvironmental scienceClimatologyHigh pressureMeteorologyGeographyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience Data JournalSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207