MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034901280 · doi:10.1175/mwr3442.1

A New Spatial-Scale Decomposition of the Brier Score: Application to the Verification of Lightning Probability Forecasts

2007· article· en· W2034901280 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Casati, Laurence J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrier scoreLightning (connector)Scale (ratio)Forecast verificationMeteorologyForecast skillWaveletProbabilistic logicComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeographyCartographyArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new scale decomposition of the Brier score for the verification of probabilistic forecasts defined on a spatial domain is introduced. The technique is illustrated on the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) lightning probability forecasts. Probability forecasts of lightning occurrence in 3-h time windows and 24-km spatial resolution are verified against lightning observations from the North American Lightning Detection Network (NALDN) on a domain encompassing Canada and the northern United States. Verification is performed for lightning occurrences exceeding two different thresholds, to assess the forecast performance both for modest and intense lightning activity. Observation and forecast fields are decomposed into the sum of components on different spatial scales by performing a discrete 2D Haar wavelet decomposition. Wavelets, rather than Fourier transforms, were chosen because they are locally defined, and therefore more suitable for representing discontinuous spatial fields characterized by the presence of a few sparse nonzero values, such as lightning. Verification at different spatial scales is performed by evaluating Brier score and Brier skill score for each spatial-scale component. Reliability and resolution are also evaluated on different scales. Moreover, the bias on different scales is assessed, along with the ability of the forecasts to reproduce the observed-scale structure.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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