MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987536493 · doi:10.1175/mwr3414.1

Verification of an Ensemble Prediction System against Observations

2007· article· en· W1987536493 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Candille, Christopher K. Cote, P. L. Houtekamer, G. Pellerin

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResamplingComputer scienceProbabilistic logicReliability (semiconductor)Forecast verificationAutocorrelationConfidence intervalStatisticsData miningPartition (number theory)Forecast skillMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A verification system has been developed for the ensemble prediction system (EPS) at the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC). This provides objective criteria for comparing two EPSs, necessary when deciding whether or not to implement a new or revised EPS. The proposed verification methodology is based on the continuous ranked probability score (CRPS), which provides an evaluation of the global skill of an EPS. Its reliability/resolution partition, proposed by Hersbach, is used to measure the two main attributes of a probabilistic system. Also, the characteristics of the reliability are obtained from the two first moments of the reduced centered random variable (RCRV), which define the bias and the dispersion of an EPS. Resampling bootstrap techniques have been applied to these scores. Confidence intervals are thus defined, expressing the uncertainty due to the finiteness of the number of realizations used to compute the scores. All verifications are performed against observations to provide more independent validations and to avoid any local systematic bias of an analysis. A revised EPS, which has been tested at the CMC in a parallel run during the autumn of 2005, is described in this paper. This EPS has been compared with the previously operational one with the verification system presented above. To illustrate the verification methodology, results are shown for the temperature at 850 hPa. The confidence intervals are computed by taking into account the spatial correlation of the data and the temporal autocorrelation of the forecast error. The revised EPS performs significantly better for all the forecast ranges, except for the resolution component of the CRPS where the improvement is no longer significant from day 7. The significant improvement of the reliability is mainly due to a better dispersion of the ensemble. Finally, the verification system correctly indicates that variations are not significant when two theoretically similar EPSs are compared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations121
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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