Addressing the Effects of Station Network Geographical Inhomogeneity on Spatially Aggregated Verification Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Meteorological station networks are often not homogeneously distributed across geographical verification domains, and usually unpopulated regions (such as deserts or forested regions) are less observed than densely populated regions (such as agricultural regions or cities). Therefore, spatially aggregated verification scores evaluated against station measurements are often dominated by the forecast performance in the regions with a denser observation network. In this study, we explore some solutions used in operational practices for reducing the effects of station network geographical inhomogeneity on spatially aggregated verification scores. The effects of network inhomogeneities on aggregated verification scores is first illustrated over Canada and high latitudes. Thinning the verifying observations to a less dense yet spatially homogeneous network (e.g., considering one station every 1° × 1° latitude–longitude sector) addresses the inhomogeneity issue, but not optimally, since it impoverishes the verification sample. In order to fully exploit the observation network, scores are spatially aggregated by applying a weight to each station, where the weights are inversely proportional to the network density around the station. The weights are evaluated by a Gaussian kernel: we describe a methodology and provide the optimal influence radius, evaluated for the SYNOP station network for different regions around the globe. We conclude that the Gaussian weighting provides more reliable results than thinning, and more representative results than considering the whole (inhomogeneous) station network.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".