Probabilistic aspects of meteorological and ozone regional ensemble forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates whether probabilistic ozone forecasts from an ensemble can be made with skill: i.e., high verification resolution and reliability. Twenty‐eight ozone forecasts were generated over the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada, for the 5‐day period 11–15 August 2004 and compared with 1‐hour averaged measurements of ozone concentrations at five stations. The forecasts were obtained by driving the Community Multiscale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) model with four meteorological forecasts and seven emission scenarios: a control run, ±50% NOx, ±50% volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ±50% NOx combined with VOC. Probabilistic forecast quality is verified using relative operating characteristic curves, Talagrand diagrams, and a new reliability index. Results show that both meteorology and emission perturbations are needed to have a skillful probabilistic forecast system: the meteorology perturbation is important to capture the ozone temporal and spatial distribution and the emission perturbation is needed to span the range of ozone concentration magnitudes. Emission perturbations are more important than meteorology perturbations for capturing the likelihood of high ozone concentrations. Perturbations involving NOx resulted in a more skillful probabilistic forecast for the episode analyzed, and therefore the 50% perturbation values appear to span much of the emission uncertainty for this case. All of the ensembles analyzed show a high ozone concentration bias in the Talagrand diagrams, even when the biases from the unperturbed emissions forecasts are removed from all ensemble members. This result indicates nonlinearity in the ensemble, which arises from both ozone chemistry and its interaction with input from particular meteorological models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".