MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925972191 · doi:10.20383/102.0743

Snowfall statistics for past and future climates calculated from two ensembles of the fifth-generation Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM5)

2023· dataset· en· W6925972191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFluoride Effects and Removal
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownscalingSnowClimate modelPercentileClimate changePrecipitationEnsemble average

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains extreme snowfall statistics from observations and regional climate model simulations. Simulated snowfall statistics are calculated using two ensembles of the fifth-generation Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM5). The first is a set of four simulations produced by Ouranos for the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) at 0.22° horizontal grid spacing over the North American domain. The second ensemble is a set of 50 simulations from the ClimEx project, driven by 50 members of the CanESM2 large ensemble over the northeastern North America domain at 0.11° horizontal grid spacing. Observations are derived from the Global Historical Climatology Network daily (GHCNd) dataset. Statistics include mean annual snowfall, the 95th percentile of daily snowfall (SF95), and the mean annual number of daily snowfall events exceeding 10% of the climatological mean annual snowfall (TC10). Statistics are presented for four time periods, the 1980-2009 recent past climate and the 30-year periods during which the +2, +3, and +4°C global warming levels (relative to the 1850-1900 preindustrial climate) are attained. These data are associated with the manuscript “Changing Nature of High-Impact Snowfall Events in Eastern North America” by McCray et al. (2023), Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres available at https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD038804.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicFluoride Effects and RemovalFrench-language works237,207