Delineation of precipitation regions using location and atmospheric variables in two Canadian climate regions: the role of attribute selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of homogeneous precipitation regions is essential in the planning, design and management of water resources systems. Regions are identified using a technique that partitions climate sites into groups based on the similarity of their attributes; the procedure is known as regionalization. In this paper the ability of four attribute sets to form large, coherent precipitation zones is assessed in terms of the regional homogeneity of precipitation statistics and computational efficiency. The outcomes provide guidance for effective attribute selection for future studies in Canada. The attributes under consideration include location parameters (latitude, longitude), distance to major water bodies, site elevation and atmospheric variables modelled at different pressure levels. The analysis is conducted in two diverse climate regions within Canada including the Prairie and the Great Lakes–St Lawrence lowlands regions. The method consists of four main steps: (i) formation of the attribute sets; (ii) determination of the preferred number of regions (selection of the c-value) into which the sites are partitioned; (iii) regionalization of climate sites using the fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm; and (iv) validation of regional homogeneity using L-moment statistics. The results of the attribute formation, c-value selection, regionalization and validation processes are presented and discussed in a comparative analysis. Based on the results it is recommended for both regions to use location parameters including latitude, longitude and distance to water bodies (in the Great Lakes region) to form precipitation regions and to consider atmospheric variables for future (climate change) applications of the regionalization procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".