MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051235840 · doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2007/0247

Excitation of Rossby-wave trains: optimal growth of forecast errors

2007· article· de· W2051235840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Mahidjiba, Mark Buehner, Ayrton Zadra

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteorologische Zeitschrift · 2007
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRossby waveMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceTrainExcitationAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Singular vectors (SVs) with appropriate norms and time scales are used in this study to capture the excitation of Rossby-wave trains (RWTs). Using global analysis data provided by the Canadian Meteorological Centre, a long-lasting RWT is selected beginning on 19 Nov 2002. Ten SVs are calculated using an optimization time interval of 48 h and a tangent linear model including a complete set of simplified physical parameterizations. At initial time, the global total-energy norm is used. For the final time, the total energy (TE) and the rotational kinetic energy (RKE) norms over three different restricted horizontal and vertical domains are used. These different configurations are examined to enable an appropriate configuration to be selected for our future work on using SVs to study the excitation of RWTs. The SVs are computed and non-linear forecasts are performed using the Canadian Global Environment Multiscale model. Results obtained show that when the analysis is perturbed with the pseudo-inverse of the 48 h forecast error in the SV subspace, the perturbation propagates with the group velocity of the RWT and the error in the non-linear forecast over the life of the wave train (6 days) is significantly reduced. Comparison between using a final-time norm based on either TE or RKE showed little impact.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteorologische ZeitschriftSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207