MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988571910 · doi:10.1175/2009waf2222214.1

Development of Skill by Students Enrolled in a Weather Forecasting Laboratory*

2009· article· en· W1988571910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas A. Bond, Clifford F. Mass

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJoint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Forecast skillMeteorologyWeather forecastingTest (biology)Environmental scienceMathematics educationStatisticsPsychologyMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Daily values of forecast scores are evaluated for students in a weather analysis and forecasting class (ATMS 452) offered by the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of the University of Washington during the spring terms of 1997–2007. The objective of this study is to determine the rate at which senior-level undergraduate students develop proficiency at short-term (next day) weather forecasting. Separate analyses are carried out for different categories of forecast parameters. Time series of the average skill achieved over the course of the quarter are presented for the median and the best–worst two student forecasters each year. An overall improvement in student forecast skill occurs over roughly the first 6 weeks of the quarter, followed by minimal systematic changes. Negligible trends in average forecast skill have occurred over the past 10 yr. The correlation coefficient between the students’ overall forecast performance and test scores in ATMS 452 is about 0.4. The results are relevant to the design of effective instructional programs for weather forecasting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeather and ForecastingSame topicInnovations in Educational MethodsFrench-language works237,207