MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052226256 · doi:10.1002/fld.1533

Data assimilation of forecasted errors in hydrodynamic models using inter‐model correlations

2007· article· en· W2052226256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
D. Mancarella, Vladan Babovic, Maarten Keijzer, Vincenzo Simeone

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsData assimilationKalman filterErrors-in-variables modelsAlgorithmForcing (mathematics)Computer scienceEnsemble Kalman filterMathematicsExtended Kalman filterArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data‐assimilation techniques of the Kalman filter type are considered to be the state‐of‐the‐art approach for combining data information and deterministic numerical models with the objective of operational forecasting. This paper introduces, as an alternative, a faster and simpler data‐assimilation technique that exploits inter‐model correlations to distribute predicted errors. This scheme is performed in two steps: (i) prediction of the deterministic model errors at observation points using so‐called local linear models and (ii) distribution of the forecasted errors over the computational domain employing a scheme based on deterministic inter‐model correlations which describe the spatial nature of error structure. The method's advantage is that systematic error can be predicted by the error correction scheme, while the dynamics remain described by the deterministic model, which also establishes a basis for the spatial error distribution scheme. This relatively simple approach is inspired by original Kalman filter techniques but distinguishes error prediction and distribution in two different stages, hence allowing for data‐driven error forecasting and off‐line correction. In order to test the scheme's performance, a deterministic model of an artificial bay was constructed and run. The system was driven by specific forcing conditions and characterized by physical parameters that, in subsequent simulations, were deliberately manipulated to introduce errors into the model and test the scheme's capability. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207