Surface Wind Speed Prediction in the Canadian Arctic using Non-Linear Machine Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two non-linear, machine-learning/statistical methods, i.e., Bayesian neural network (BNN) and support vector regression (SVR), plus multiple linear regression (MLR), were used to forecast surface wind speeds at lead times of 12, 24, 48 and 72 h. Three different schemes, a statistical downscaling model (Scheme 1) using daily reforecast data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Global Forecasting System (GFS), an autoregressive model (Scheme 2) based on past wind observations, and a full model (Scheme 3) combining the two, were investigated in this study for the October–March winds from two meteorological stations in the Canadian Arctic (Clyde River and Paulatuk). At very short lead times, Scheme 2 provides better wind speed prediction than Scheme 1, but its forecast scores decrease rapidly with lead time. Scheme 3 generally performs best, especially at shorter lead times. All the linear and non-linear downscaling methods have significantly higher forecast scores at the two stations than the GFS reforecast. The non-linear methods tended to have slightly better forecast scores than linear methods (MLR and the linear version of SVR). There is particular interest in high-wind events, defined as having wind speeds over 22 knots (11.3 m s−1). After rescaling, the continuous wind predictions from Scheme 3 were classified into two types — high-wind event or non-event. For high-wind event forecasting, the non-linear methods have marginally better binary forecast scores than the linear methods for Clyde River but not for Paulatuk. The alternative approach of using support vector classification (SVC) did not perform better, but weighting the high-wind events more heavily than the non-events during model training improved the binary forecast scores.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".