MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976686685 · doi:10.1175/mwr3285.1

The Characteristics of Key Analysis Errors. Part I: Dynamical Balance and Comparison with Observations

2007· article· en· W1976686685 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐François Caron, M. K. Yau, Stéphane Laroche, Peter Zwack

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsForecast errorRange (aeronautics)Systematic errorObservational errorError analysisSet (abstract data type)Error detection and correctionMeteorologyMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceAlgorithmApplied mathematicsPhysicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The characteristics of the initial corrections obtained from the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) energy-norm-based key analysis error algorithm that minimizes short-range (24 h) forecast errors were investigated for four specific CMC operational analyses. The results show that both the rotational and the divergent components of the initial corrections are strongly out of balance. Some dispersive modes are also present in the mass component of the initial corrections. The results from one experiment where the initial state errors were known suggest that the current algorithm always selects a set of unbalanced initial corrections with more mass correction than wind correction, regardless of the characteristics of the real initial condition errors. Comparison with observational data showed that the corrected analysis is systematically farther away from the observations than the control analysis even in large forecast error events where most of the forecast errors are believed to have originated from errors in the initial state.

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)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207