Verification and intercomparison of mesoscale ensemble prediction systems in the Beijing 2008 Olympics Research and Development Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the period around the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, the Beijing 2008 Olympics Research and Development Project (B08RDP) was conducted as part of the World Weather Research Program short-range weather forecasting research project. Mesoscale ensemble prediction (MEP) experiments were carried out by six organizations in nearreal time, in order to share their experiences in the development of MEP systems. The purpose of this study is to objectively verify these experiments and to clarify the problems associated with the current MEP systems through the same experiences.Verification was performed using the MEP outputs interpolated into a common verification domain with a horizontal resolution of 15 km. For all systems, the ensemble spreads grew as the forecast time increased, and the ensemble mean improved the forecast errors compared with individual control forecasts in the verification against the analysis fields. However, each system exhibited individual characteristics according to the MEP method.Some participants used physical perturbation methods. The significance of these methods was confirmed by the verification. However, the mean error (ME) of the ensemble forecast in some systems was worse than that of the individual control forecast. This result suggests that it is necessary to pay careful attention to physical perturbations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".