MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094448605 · doi:10.1029/2005gl023451

Precipitation forecast skill of numerical weather prediction models and radar nowcasts

2005· article· en· W2094448605 on OpenAlexaff
Charles A. Lin, Slavko Vasić, Alamelu Kilambi, Barry Turner, Isztar Zawadzki

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersWorkforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
KeywordsNowcastingQuantitative precipitation forecastRadarPrecipitationAdvectionMeteorologyNumerical weather predictionForecast skillClimatologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short term precipitation forecasts based on Lagrangian advection of radar echoes are robust and have more skill than numerical weather prediction models over time scales of several hours. This is because the models do not generally capture well the initial precipitation distribution. We will refer to the advection‐based methods as radar nowcasts. Over longer time scales, we expect the models to perform better than nowcast methods as they resolve dynamically the large scale flow. We verify this conceptual picture of the relative accuracy of radar nowcasts and model forecasts using conventional skill scores. We identify the cross‐over point in time where model forecasts start to have more skill than nowcast methods. This occurs at about 6 hours after the forecast is initiated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations146
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207