MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981263123

Dynamical Random-Set Modeling of Concentrated Precipitation in North America

2011· article· en· W6981263123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioactive natural compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationClimate modelGeneral Circulation ModelClimate changeSeries (stratigraphy)Realization (probability)Time seriesQuantitative precipitation estimation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to study climate at scales where policy decisions can be made, regional climate models (RCMs) have been developed with much finer resolution (∼50 km) than the ∼500 km resolution of atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). The North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) is an international program that provides 50-km resolution climate output for the United States, Canada, and northern Mexico. In Phase I, there are six RCMs, from which we choose one to illustrate our methodology. The RCMs are updated every 3 hours and contain a number of variables, including temperature, precipitation, wind speed, wind direction, and air pressure; output is available from the years 1968–2000 and from the years 2038–2070. Precipitation is of particular interest to climate scientists, but it can be difficult to study because of its patchy nature: At hourly-up-to-monthly time scales, there are generally many zeroes over the precipitation field. In this research, we study sets of concentrated precipitation (i.e., the union of RCM pixels whose precipitation is above a given threshold), where we are interested in the way these sets evolve from one 3-hour period to the next. Assuming the sets are a realization of a time series of random sets, we are able to build dynamical models for the passage of rainfall fronts over 1-2 days. The dynamics are characterized by a growth/recession model for a time series of random sets, with several parameters that control how the concentrated precipitation changes over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioactive natural compoundsFrench-language works237,207