MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159474914 · doi:10.1029/2004gl020547

Verification of mesoscale modeling for the severe rainfall event over southern Ontario in May 2000

2004· article· en· W2159474914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zuohao Cao, P. Pellerin, Harold Ritchie

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMEG-3 (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesoscale meteorologyPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceClimatologyRain gaugeStreamflowFlood mythAtmospheric modelMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyDrainage basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A coupled atmospheric‐hydrological model (CAHM) with a high‐resolution, self‐nesting and one‐way coupling capability is employed to simulate the severe rainfall event that lead to a flood in May 2000 over southern Ontario. Three verification approaches are carried out to evaluate the atmospheric mesoscale model performance. The results show that the 48‐h accumulated peak precipitation simulated by a mesoscale model successfully captures the observed peak rainfall recorded over a spatially dense rain gauge network in southern Ontario. Furthermore, the quantitative evaluation of the model predicted precipitation demonstrates that there is a systematic improvement in terms of the accuracies and skills when the model resolution is increased. In addition, an independent verification by comparing the CAHM simulated streamflow with the observed hourly streamflow shows the excellent agreement between the simulations and the observations in terms of magnitudes and timing of peak streamflows, indicating that precipitation is well simulated by the atmospheric mesoscale model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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