MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inter-Comparison Study of the ENSEMBLE Project

2008· article· en· W1997844072 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Science and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmonizationEnsemble forecastingRange (aeronautics)Ensemble averageDispersion (optics)Environmental scienceEconometricsMeteorologyStatisticsOperations researchNuclear engineeringGeographyClimatologyMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the days of the Chernobyl accident, the European national long-range dispersion forecasts would differ because of differences in national models, and differences in weather prediction methods. ENSEMBLE project was launched for a reconciliation and harmonization of the disparate long-range dispersion forecasts. Responsible European emergency organizations in addition to Canadian, Japanese, Korean and US agencies have participated in ENSEMBLE. KAERI joined the inter-comparison study for the exercise on the 901–001 scenario in ENSEMBLE. KAERI was assigned KR1 as a national code and 53 as a model number. The model of KAERI was compared with the other models of the participants in ENSEMBLE. The comparative results are presented with the scatter plots and statistical methods in this paper.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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