Hydrometeorological Short-Range Ensemble Forecasts in Complex Terrain. Part II: Economic Evaluation
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 Two economic models are employed to perform a value assessment of short-range ensemble forecasts of 24-h precipitation probabilities for hydroelectric reservoir operation. Using a static cost–loss model, the value of the probability information is compared to the values of a deterministic control high-resolution forecast and of an ensemble-average forecast for forecast days 1 and 2. It is found that the probabilistic ensemble forecast provides value to a much wider range of hydroelectric operators than either the deterministic high-resolution forecast or the ensemble-average forecast, although for a small subset of operators the value of the three forecasts is the same. Forecasts for day-1 precipitation provide measurably higher value than forecasts for day-2 precipitation because of the loss of skill in the longer-range forecasts. A decision theory model provides a continuous-variable weighting of a user-specific utility function. The utility function weights are supplied by the ensemble prediction system, and the outcome is compared with weights calculated from a deterministic model, from the ensemble average, and from climatology. It is found that the methods employing the full ensemble and the ensemble average outperform the single deterministic model and climatology for the hydroelectric reservoir scenario studied.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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