MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142009264 · doi:10.5194/nhess-11-587-2011

Forecasting severe ice storms using numerical weather prediction: the March 2010 Newfoundland event

2011· article· en· W2142009264 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jaromir Hosek, Petr Musı́lek, Edward P. Lozowski, Pawel Pytlak

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural hazards and earth system sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFreezing rainIcingStormPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyAccretion (finance)Event (particle physics)Atmospheric sciencesGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The northeast coast of North America is frequently hit by severe ice storms. These freezing rain events can produce large ice accretions that damage structures, frequently power transmission and distribution infrastructure. For this reason, it is highly desirable to model and forecast such icing events, so that the consequent damages can be prevented or mitigated. The case study presented in this paper focuses on the March 2010 ice storm event that took place in eastern Newfoundland. We apply a combination of a numerical weather prediction model and an ice accretion algorithm to simulate a forecast of this event. The main goals of this study are to compare the simulated meteorological variables to observations, and to assess the ability of the model to accurately predict the ice accretion load for different forecast horizons. The duration and timing of the freezing rain event that occurred between the night of 4 March and the morning of 6 March was simulated well in all model runs. The total precipitation amounts in the model, however, differed by up to a factor of two from the observations. The accuracy of the model air temperature strongly depended on the forecast horizon, but it was acceptable for all simulation runs. The simulated accretion loads were also compared to the design values for power delivery structures in the region. The results indicated that the simulated values exceeded design criteria in the areas of reported damage and power outages.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural hazards and earth system sciencesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207