MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968838733 · doi:10.1256/qj.05.154

Analysis of scale dependence of quantitative precipitation forecast verification: A case‐study over the Mackenzie river basin

2006· article· en· W1968838733 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Olivier Bousquet, Charles A. Lin, Isztar Zawadzki

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsPredictabilityPrecipitationClimatologyEnvironmental scienceQuantitative precipitation forecastScale (ratio)MeteorologyForecast verificationOrographyQuantitative precipitation estimationSmoothingRadarForecast skillStatisticsMathematicsGeologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Six‐hour rainfall accumulations derived from radar observations collected during a 3‐day summertime precipitation event over central Alberta (Canada) are used to assess the performance of a regional Canadian numerical weather prediction system for quantitative precipitation forecast verification. We show that radar data provide a simple and efficient way to significantly reduce model phase errors associated with misplacement of predicted precipitation patterns. Using wavelet analysis, we determine that the limiting spatial scale of predictability of the model is about six times its grid resolution for 6 h accumulated fields. The use of longer accumulation periods is shown to smooth out forecast errors that may have resulted from slight phase or time shift errors but does not change the limiting scale of predictability. The scale decomposition of the mean‐square forecast error also reveals that scales which cannot be accurately reproduced by the model account for about 20% of the total error. Using classical continuous and categorical scores, we show that significantly better model performance can be achieved by smoothing out wavelengths that cannot be predicted. Copyright © 2006 Royal Meteorological Society

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
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 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207