Impacts of Adjusting Solid Precipitation Amounts in the Canadian Precipitation Analysis System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Real-time precipitation data are essential for weather forecasting, flood prediction, drought monitoring, irrigation, fire prevention, and hydroelectric management. To optimize these activities, reliable precipitation estimates are crucial. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) leads the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) project, providing near-real-time precipitation estimates across North America. However, during winter, CaPA’s 6-hourly accuracy is limited because many automatic surface observations are not assimilated due to wind-induced gauge undercatch. The objective of this study is to evaluate the added value of adjusted hourly precipitation amounts for gauge undercatch due to wind speed in CaPA. A recent ECCC dataset of hourly precipitation measurements from automatic precipitation gauges across Canada is included in CaPA as part of this study. Precipitation amounts are adjusted based on several types of transfer functions, which convert measured precipitation into what high-quality equipment would have measured with reduced undercatch. First, there are no notable differences in CaPA when comparing the performance of the universal transfer function with that of several climate-specific transfer functions based on wind speed and air temperature. However, increasing solid precipitation amounts using a specific type of transfer function that depends on snowfall intensity rather than near-surface air temperature is more likely to improve CaPA’s precipitation estimates during the winter season. This improvement is more evident when the objective evaluation is performed with direct comparison with the Adjusted Daily Rainfall and Snowfall (AdjDlyRS) dataset.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".