Comparing TIGGE multimodel forecasts with reforecast‐calibrated ECMWF ensemble forecasts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forecasts provided by the THORPEX Interactive Grand Global Ensemble (TIGGE) project were compared with reforecast‐calibrated ensemble predictions from the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in extratropical regions. Considering the statistical performance of global probabilistic forecasts of 850 hPa and 2 m temperatures, a multimodel ensemble containing nine ensemble prediction systems (EPS) from the TIGGE archive did not improve on the performance of the best single‐model, the ECMWF EPS. However, a reduced multimodel system, consisting of only the four best ensemble systems, provided by Canada, the USA, the United Kingdom and ECMWF, showed an improved performance. The multimodel ensemble provides a benchmark for the single‐model systems contributing to the multimodel. However, reforecast‐calibrated ECMWF EPS forecasts were of comparable or superior quality to the multimodel predictions, when verified against two different reanalyses or observations. This improved performance was achieved by using the ECMWF reforecast dataset to correct for systematic errors and spread deficiencies. The ECMWF EPS was the main contributor for the improved performance of the multimodel ensemble; that is, if the multimodel system did not include the ECMWF contribution, it was not able to improve on the performance of the ECMWF EPS alone. These results were shown to be only marginally sensitive to the choice of verification dataset. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it