Spatial partitioning of terrestrial precipitation reveals varying dataset agreement across different environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study of the water cycle at planetary scale is crucial for our understanding of large-scale climatic processes. However, very little is known about how terrestrial precipitation is distributed across different environments. In this study, we address this gap by employing a 17-dataset ensemble to provide, for the first time, precipitation estimates over a suite of land cover types, biomes, elevation zones, and precipitation intensity classes. We estimate annual terrestrial precipitation at approximately 114,000 ± 9400 km 3 , with about 70% falling over tropical, subtropical and temperate regions. Our results highlight substantial inconsistencies, mainly, over the arid and the mountainous areas. To quantify the overall discrepancies, we utilize the concept of dataset agreement and then explore the pairwise relationships among the datasets in terms of “genealogy”, concurrency, and distance. The resulting uncertainty-based partitioning demonstrates how precipitation is distributed over a wide range of environments and improves our understanding on how their conditions influence observational fidelity.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".