MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081990808 · doi:10.1002/qj.873

The Canadian Global Environmental Multiscale model on the Yin‐Yang grid system

2011· article· en· W2081990808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdessamad Qaddouri, Vivian Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridParametrization (atmospheric modeling)DiscretizationInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer sciencePrimitive equationsMeteorologyApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysicsMotion (physics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At the Canadian Meteorological Center (CMC), we are currently developing the future global forecasting Yin‐Yang model. In the horizontal we use spherical coordinates on the overset Yin‐Yang grid, while in the vertical we use a log‐hydrostatic‐pressure coordinate on the Charney–Phillips grid. The parametrization of physical processes is kept the same as in the current Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) operational model. The Yin‐Yang global forecast is performed by considering a domain decomposition (a two‐way coupling method) between two limited‐area models (LAMs) discretized on the two panels of the Yin‐Yang grid and using the same time step. Each panel of the Yin‐Yang grid system is extended by a static halo region and uses the same fully implicit semi‐Lagrangian method as in the GEM operational model to solve its own dynamic core. The spatial and time discretizations are implemented independently on each quasi‐uniform latitude–longitude subgrid. The static halo region plays the same role as the piloting region in limited‐area modelling. Since the two subgrids of the Yin‐Yang grid do not match, the update of the variables in the pilot region is done by cubic Lagrange interpolation. For our model validation, we ran 42 winter and 42 summer cases using analysis from 2008–2009 and we compared five‐day forecast results against observations. No noise is seen in the overlap regions during the simulations. Preliminary results presented in this article are encouraging and demonstrate that in comparison with observations the new Yin‐Yang system performs as well as the GEM global model. © 2011 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations96
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207