Warm Season Lightning Probability Prediction for Canada and the Northern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Statistical models valid May–September were developed to predict the probability of lightning in 3-h intervals using observations from the North American Lightning Detection Network and predictors derived from Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model output at the Canadian Meteorological Centre. Models were built with pooled data from the years 2000–01 using tree-structured regression. Error reduction by most models was about 0.4–0.7 of initial predictand variance. Many predictors were required to model lightning occurrence for this large area. Highest ranked overall were the Showalter index, mean sea level pressure, and troposphere precipitable water. Three-hour changes of 500-hPa geopotential height, 500–1000-hPa thickness, and MSL pressure were highly ranked in most areas. The 3-h average of most predictors was more important than the mean or maximum (minimum where appropriate). Several predictors outranked CAPE, indicating it must appear with other predictors for successful statistical lightning prediction models. Results presented herein demonstrate that tree-structured regression is a viable method for building statistical models to forecast lightning probability. Real-time forecasts in 3-h intervals to 45–48 h were made in 2003 and 2004. The 2003 verification suggests a hybrid forecast based on a mixture of maximum and mean forecast probabilities in a radius around a grid point and on monthly climatology will improve accuracy. The 2004 verification shows that the hybrid forecasts had positive skill with respect to a reference forecast and performed better than forecasts defined by either the mean or maximum probability at most times. This was achieved even though an increase of resolution and change of convective parameterization scheme were made to the GEM model in May 2004.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".