MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088055069 · doi:10.1175/2010mwr3404.1

Evaluation of the Impact of Observations on Analyses in 3D- and 4D-Var Based on Information Content

2010· article· en· W2088055069 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cristina Lupu, Pierre Gauthier, Stéphane Laroche

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData assimilationConsistency (knowledge bases)A priori and a posterioriSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)StatisticsVariational analysisMathematicsData miningAlgorithmApplied mathematicsMeteorologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The degrees of freedom for signal (DFS) is used in data assimilation applications to measure the self-sensitivity of analysis to different observation types. This paper describes a practical method to estimate the DFS of observations from a posteriori statistics. The method does not require the consistency of the error statistics in the analysis system and it is shown that the observational impact on analyses can be estimated from observation departures with respect to analysis or the forecast. This method is first introduced to investigate the impact of a complete set, or subsets, of observations on the analysis for idealized one-dimensional variational data assimilation (1D-Var) analysis experiments and then applied in the framework of the three dimensional (3D)- and four-dimensional (4D)-Var schemes developed at Environment Canada.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207