MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090882695 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00424.1

The Gaussian Statistical Predictability of Wind Speeds

2013· article· en· W2090882695 on OpenAlexaff
Adam H. Monahan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityWind speedScatterometerGaussianMeteorologyWind directionWind profile power lawLog wind profileEnvironmental scienceMathematicsWind gradientStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The statistical predictability of wind speed using Gaussian predictors, relative to the predictability of orthogonal vector wind components, is considered. With the assumption that the vector wind components are Gaussian, analytic expressions for the correlation-based wind speed prediction skill are obtained in terms of the prediction skills of the vector wind components and their statistical moments. It is shown thatat least one of the vector wind components is generally better predicted than the wind speed (often much more so);wind speed predictions constructed from the predictions of vector wind components are more skillful than direct wind speed predictions; andthe linear predictability of wind speed (relative to that of the vector wind components) decreases as the variability in the vector wind increases relative to the mean. These idealized model results are shown to be broadly consistent with linear predictive skills assessed using observed sea surface wind from the SeaWinds scatterometer. Biases in the model predictions are shown to be related to the degree to which vector wind variations are non-Gaussian.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207