Using human observations with instrument-based metrics to understand changing rainfall patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shifting precipitation regimes are a well-documented and pervasive consequence of climate change. Subsistence-oriented communities worldwide can identify changes in rainfall patterns that most affect their lives. Here we scrutinize the importance of human-based rainfall observations (collated through a literature review spanning from 1994 to 2013) as climate metrics and the relevance of instrument-based precipitation indices to subsistence activities. For comparable time periods (1955-2005), changes observed by humans match well with instrumental records at same locations for well-established indices of rainfall (72% match), drought (76%), and extreme rainfall (81%), demonstrating that we can bring together human and instrumental observations. Many communities (1114 out of 1827) further identify increased variability and unpredictability in the start, end, and continuity of rainy seasons, all of which disrupt the cropping calendar, particularly in the Tropics. These changes in rainfall patterns and predictability are not fully captured by existing indices, and their social-ecological impacts are still understudied. This paper provides an analysis or rainfall changes that integrates human-based and instrument-based observations, identifying regions of agreement and disagreement, and providing insights on how traditional ecological knowledge can complement instrumental indices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".