MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160949929

Avalanche Forecast Verification Through a Comparison of Local Nowcasts with Regional Forecast

2014· article· en· W2160949929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eirik Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Snow Science Workshop 2014 Proceedings, Banff, Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNowcastingMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a methodology and a new dataset used by the Canadian Avalanche Center's Yukon Field Team in the winters of 2013 and 2014 to validate their forecasts of avalanche dan- ger and primary avalanche problem. Using established techniques 77 local nowcasts were compared to operational and public regional forecasts over a variety of lead times. Preliminary results indicate that these forecasts accurately predicated observed conditions for 69% to 85% of cases. There was little dif- ference in accuracy found between the forecasts of danger and avalanche problem and the length of forecasts lead times did not have a significant affect. Several sources of bias are identified that should be filtered in future studies and suggestions for new research are presented.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Snow Science Workshop 2014 Proceedings, Banff, CanadaSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207