MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411453649 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-24-0092.1

Assessing Consistency across High-Resolution North American Precipitation Datasets

2025· article· en· W4411453649 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julie M. Thériault, Alejandro Di Luca, François Roberge, Tangui Picart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersGlobal Water Futures
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)PrecipitationClimatologyOutlierEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceObservational studyMeteorologyGeographyStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent decades, there has been a surge in the availability of precipitation datasets, each leveraging diverse data sources and sophisticated algorithms. However, the density of the gauged station network presents a substantial challenge in thoroughly assessing these datasets, particularly in regions with sparse coverage. This study seeks to quantify the observational uncertainty of precipitation across North America by introducing a novel framework. The framework is designed to detect potential outliers, categorize datasets based on their level of agreement, and operate at both monthly and daily time steps. Eleven datasets spanning from 2002 to 2017 are investigated: Australian National University Splines (ANUSPLIN), Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA), Climate Hazards group Infrared Precipitation with Stations (CHIRPS), CMORPH, Daily Surface Weather Data on a 1-km Grid for North America (DAYMET), ERA5, GSMaP, IMERG, Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation (MSWEP), PERSIANN, and PRISM. Analyses at the gridcell scale revealed that on average and across the entire domain, excluding outlier datasets reduced observational uncertainty by ∼17% for the monthly time step and ∼39% for the daily time step. Aggregating results over 24 hydrological entities provided a broader perspective and revealed that certain datasets were consistently classified in the same group. Notably, MSWEP was always in the high-consistency group, while PRISM and CaPA were predominantly in that group. Satellite-based datasets (CHIRPS, CMORPH, GSMaP, and IMERG) were mainly classified in the high-consistency group during summer, reflecting their ability to capture convective precipitation. ERA5 appeared in both the high- and low-consistency groups, depending on the season and region. Although our framework identified sets of consistent datasets and potentially reduces uncertainties, we emphasize that uncertainties remain and encourage the scientific community, to consider these observational uncertainties in their analyses. Significance Statement Numerous precipitation datasets are being developed for long-term environmental studies, but important observational uncertainties arise from the differences among these datasets. In this context, our study presents a framework to quantify and categorize these uncertainties into three groups: high-consistency, low-consistency, and outliers. By identifying consistent datasets and excluding outliers, we offer a method to reduce uncertainties. However, substantial uncertainties remain, underscoring the importance of intercomparing precipitation datasets for all related analyses. We urge the scientific community to incorporate these uncertainties into their work to ensure the reliability and robustness of their findings, ultimately improving the quality of environmental studies.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrometeorologySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207