MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033602319 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-13-00117.1

A Comparison of Two Techniques for Generating Nowcasting Ensembles. Part I: Lagrangian Ensemble Technique

2014· article· en· W2033602319 on OpenAlexaff
Aitor Atencia, Isztar Zawadzki

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNowcastingExtrapolationLagrangianNoise (video)Computer scienceRadarStatistical physicsLimitingMeteorologyMathematicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lagrangian extrapolation of recent radar observations is a widely used deterministic nowcasting technique in operational and research centers. However, this technique does not account for errors due to changes in precipitation motion and to growth and decay, thus limiting forecasting skill. In this work these uncertainties have been introduced in the Lagrangian forecasts to generate different realistic future realizations (ensembles). The developed technique benefits from the well-known predictable large scales (low pass) and introduces stochastic noise in the small scales (high pass). The existence of observed predictable properties in the small scales is introduced in the generation of the stochastic noise. These properties provide realistic ensembles of different meteorological situations, narrowing the spread among members. Finally, some statistical spatial and temporal properties of the final set of ensembles have been verified to determine if the technique developed introduced enough uncertainty while keeping the properties of the original field.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207