MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059072711 · doi:10.1175/jcli4241.1

Improved Skill of Northern Hemisphere Winter Surface Temperature Predictions Based on Land–Atmosphere Fall Anomalies

2007· article· en· W2059072711 on OpenAlexafffund
Judah Cohen, Christopher G. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExtratropical cycloneNorthern HemisphereClimatologyForecast skillEnvironmental scienceAtmosphere (unit)SnowAnomaly (physics)Sea surface temperatureGeopotential heightSnow coverClimate modelMeteorologyClimate changeGeologyGeographyPrecipitationOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A statistical forecast model, referred to as the snow-cast (sCast) model, has been developed using observed October mean snow cover and sea level pressure anomalies to predict upcoming winter land surface temperatures for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. In operational forecasts since 1999, snow cover has been used for seven winters, and sea level pressure anomalies for three winters. Presented are skill scores for these seven real-time forecasts and also for 33 winter hindcasts (1972/73–2004/05). The model demonstrates positive skill over much of the eastern United States and northern Eurasia—regions that have eluded skillful predictions among the existing major seasonal forecast centers. Comparison with three leading dynamical forecast systems shows that the statistical model produces superior skill for the same regions. Despite the increasing complexity of the dynamical models, they continue to derive their forecast skill predominantly from tropical atmosphere–ocean coupling, in particular from ENSO. Therefore, in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, away from the influence of ENSO, the sCast model is expected to outperform the dynamical models into the foreseeable future.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations97
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207