ArticleScientific reports2023
Classification of precipitation types in Poland using machine learning and threshold temperature methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The phase in which precipitation falls-rainfall, snowfall, or sleet-has a considerable impact on hydrology and surface runoff. However, many weather stations only provide information on the total amount of precipitation, at other stations series are short or incomplete. To address this issue, data from 40 meteorological stations in Poland spanning the years 1966-2020 were utilized in this study to classify precipitation. Three methods were used to differentiate between rainfall and snowfall: machine learning (i.e., Random Forest), daily mean threshold air temperature, and daily wet bulb threshold temperature. The key findings of this study are: (i) the Random Forest (RF) method demonstrated the highest accuracy in rainfall/snowfall classification among the used approaches, which spanned from 0.90 to 1.00 across all stations and months; (ii) the classification accuracy provided by the mean wet bulb temperature and daily mean threshold air temperature approaches were quite similar, which spanned from 0.86 to 1.00 across all stations and months; (iii) Values of optimized mean threshold temperature and optimized wet bulb threshold temperature were determined for each of the 40 meteorological stations; (iv) the inclusion of water vapor pressure has a noteworthy impact on the RF classification model, and the removal of mean wet bulb temperature from the input data set leads to an improvement in the classification accuracy of the RF model. Future research should be conducted to explore the variations in the effectiveness of precipitation classification for each station.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.