MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075453735 · doi:10.1175/jas-d-14-0071.1

A Study on the Scale Dependence of the Predictability of Precipitation Patterns

2014· article· en· W2075453735 on OpenAlexafffund
Madalina Surcel, Isztar Zawadzki, M. K. Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPredictabilityDecorrelationPrecipitationMesoscale meteorologyQuantitative precipitation forecastRadarNumerical weather predictionEnsemble forecastingEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyScale (ratio)Range (aeronautics)Weather Research and Forecasting ModelComputer scienceMathematicsGeologyStatisticsAlgorithmGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A methodology is proposed to investigate the scale dependence of the predictability of precipitation patterns at the mesoscale. By applying it to two or more precipitation fields, either modeled or observed, a decorrelation scale can be defined such that all scales smaller than are fully decorrelated. For precipitation forecasts from a radar data–assimilating storm-scale ensemble forecasting (SSEF) system, is found to increase with lead time, reaching 300 km after 30 h. That is, for , the ensemble members are fully decorrelated. Hence, there is no predictability of the model state for these scales. For , the ensemble members are correlated, indicating some predictability by the ensemble. When applied to characterize the ability to predict precipitation as compared to radar observations by numerical weather prediction (NWP) as well as by Lagrangian persistence and Eulerian persistence, increases with lead time for most forecasting methods, while it is constant (300 km) for non–radar data–assimilating NWP. Comparing the different forecasting models, it is found that they are similar in the 0–6-h range and that none of them exhibit any predictive ability at meso-γ and meso-β scales after the first 2 h. On the other hand, the radar data–assimilating ensemble exhibits predictability of the model state at these scales, thus causing a systematic difference between corresponding to the ensemble and corresponding to model and radar. This suggests that either the ensemble does not have sufficient spread at these scales or that the forecasts suffer from biases.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207