Verified combination of numerical weather- and avalanche-prediction models at Kootenay Pass, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The combination of numerical weather prediction (NWP) and snow avalanche forecasting has been performed using the output of two weather models run at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and a local numerical avalanche-forecasting model developed for Kootenay Pass (McClung and Tweedy, 1994). The main motivations for this work are. (1) to extend the lead time of avalanche forecasts by using NWP forecasts of meteorological variables as input to statistical avalanche-threat models (instead of the traditional method of using current/past observed meteorological variables as input); and (2) to create another tool to help avalanche forecasters in their daily decision-making by making true forecasts instead of “nowcasts”. Therefore, verified weather-forecast model output was used as input for the local avalanche-forecasting model at Kootenay Pass. The resulting 24 hour avalanche forecast was compared to observed avalanche occurrences and to the 12 hour avalanche forecast with current weather observations. As a result, the avalanche-model output for the test runs with numerically predicted weather data is comparable in accuracy to the runs with observed weather data. The results also suggest that avalanches may be predicted statistically for 24 hours into the future when high-resolution NWP is used as input, weather- and avalanche-forecast errors taken into account during operational use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".