The THORPEX Observation Impact Intercomparison Experiment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experiment is being conducted to directly compare the impact of all assimilated observations on short-range forecast errors in different forecast systems using an adjoint-based technique. The technique allows detailed comparison of observation impacts in terms of data type, location, satellite sounding channel, or other relevant attributes. This paper describes results for a “baseline” set of observations assimilated by three forecast systems for the month of January 2007. Despite differences in the assimilation algorithms and forecast models, the impacts of the major observation types are similar in each forecast system in a global sense. However, regional details and other aspects of the results can differ substantially. Large forecast error reductions are provided by satellite radiances, geostationary satellite winds, radiosondes, and commercial aircraft. Other observation types provide smaller impacts individually, but their combined impact is significant. Only a small majority of the total number of observations assimilated actually improves the forecast, and most of the improvement comes from a large number of observations that have relatively small individual impacts. Accounting for this behavior may be especially important when considering strategies for deploying adaptive (or “targeted”) components of the observing system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it