MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016703826 · doi:10.1029/2005jd005858

Assessment of an ensemble of seven real‐time ozone forecasts over eastern North America during the summer of 2004

2005· article· en· W2016703826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. A. McKeen, James M. Wilczak, Georg Grell, Irina V. Djalalova, Steven E. Peckham, E.‐Y. Hsie, V. S. Bouchet, Sylvain Ménard, R. Moffet, John N. McHenry, J. McQueen, Youhua Tang, Gregory R. Carmichael, Mariusz Pagowski, Andy Chan, Timothy Dye, G. J. Frost, P. Lee, Rohit Mathur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsMean squared errorWeightingEnsemble averageMathematicsStandard deviationVariance (accounting)ClimatologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The real‐time forecasts of ozone (O3) from seven air quality forecast models (AQFMs) are statistically evaluated against observations collected during July and August of 2004 (53 days) through the Aerometric Information Retrieval Now (AIRNow) network at roughly 340 monitoring stations throughout the eastern United States and southern Canada. One of the first ever real‐time ensemble O3 forecasts, created by combining the seven separate forecasts with equal weighting, is also evaluated in terms of standard statistical measures, threshold statistics, and variance analysis. The ensemble based on the mean of the seven models and the ensemble based on the median are found to have significantly more temporal correlation to the observed daily maximum 1‐hour average and maximum 8‐hour average O3 concentrations than any individual model. However, root‐mean‐square errors (RMSE) and skill scores show that the usefulness of the uncorrected ensembles is limited by positive O3 biases in all of the AQFMs. The ensembles and AQFM statistical measures are reevaluated using two simple bias correction algorithms for forecasts at each monitor location: subtraction of the mean bias and a multiplicative ratio adjustment, where corrections are based on the full 53 days of available comparisons. The impact the two bias correction techniques have on RMSE, threshold statistics, and temporal variance is presented. For the threshold statistics a preferred bias correction technique is found to be model dependent and related to whether the model overpredicts or underpredicts observed temporal O3 variance. All statistical measures of the ensemble mean forecast, and particularly the bias‐corrected ensemble forecast, are found to be insensitive to the results of any particular model. The higher correlation coefficients, low RMSE, and better threshold statistics for the ensembles compared to any individual model point to their preference as a real‐time O3 forecast.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations229
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207