MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098040290

Forestry Research Applications Spatial models of Canada- and North America-wide 1971/2000

2016· article· en· W7098040290 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateClimate modelGeneralizationPrecipitationSimple (philosophy)Interpretation (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This note briefly reports on the development of spatial models of Canada-and North America-wide 1971/2000 30-year mean monthly minimum and maximum temperature, total precipitation and several derived bioclimatic variables. We report on the quality of the models via the interpretation of model accessed over the internet and examined. Canadian applications of ANUSPLIN that have been documented previously include Mackey et al. (1996), Price et al. (2000, 2004), and McKenney et al. (2001, 2004, 2005). Several other applications are currently being written up, including historical monthly models from 1901, extreme minimum temperature models for plant hardiness and weekly models. Methods Numerous peer-reviewed articles on ANUSPLIN document the underlying mathematics. These citations and other relevant literature can be found at the web sites noted above. ANUSPLIN is a multi-variate non-parametric surface fitting approach to developing spatially continuous climate models. It makes use of thin plate-smoothing splines, which are a true multi-variate generalization of univariate splines, as described by Wahba (1990). They should not be confused with simple constructions based on cubic polynomials. Earliest applications were described by Whaba and Wendelberger (1980) but the methodology has been further developed and made operational as a climate mapping tool by Professor Michael Hutchinson at the ANU over the last 20 years or so.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207