MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965068681 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-14-0008.1

Why Should Ensemble Spread Match the RMSE of the Ensemble Mean?

2014· article· en· W1965068681 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité LavalEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnsemble averageMean squared errorStandard deviationVariance (accounting)Ensemble forecastingStatisticsEnsemble learningSquare rootMathematicsMean squareComputer scienceClimatologyGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When evaluating the reliability of an ensemble prediction system, it is common to compare the root-mean-square error of the ensemble mean to the average ensemble spread. While this is indeed good practice, two different and inconsistent methodologies have been used over the last few years in the meteorology and hydrology literature to compute the average ensemble spread. In some cases, the square root of average ensemble variance is used, and in other cases, the average of ensemble standard deviation is computed instead. The second option is incorrect. To avoid the perpetuation of practices that are not supported by probability theory, the correct equation for computing the average ensemble spread is obtained and the impact of using the wrong equation is illustrated.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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