MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160951749 · doi:10.1175/waf-d-13-00008.1

An Evaluation of Tropical Cyclone Genesis Forecasts from Global Numerical Models

2013· article· en· W2160951749 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationMet OfficeFlorida State UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsClimatologyTropical cycloneTropical cyclone forecast modelGlobal Forecast SystemMeteorologyNumerical weather predictionEnvironmental scienceForecast skillQuantitative precipitation forecastConsensus forecastComputer sciencePrecipitationEconometricsGeologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tropical cyclone (TC) forecasts rely heavily on output from global numerical models. While considerable research has investigated the skill of various models with respect to track and intensity, few studies have considered how well global models forecast TC genesis in the North Atlantic basin. This paper analyzes TC genesis forecasts from five global models [Environment Canada's Global Environment Multiscale Model (CMC), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) global model, the Global Forecast System (GFS), the Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS), and the Met Office global model (UKMET)] over several seasons in the North Atlantic basin. Identifying TCs in the model is based on a combination of methods used previously in the literature and newly defined objective criteria. All model-indicated TCs are classified as a hit, false alarm, early genesis, or late genesis event. Missed events also are considered. Results show that the models' ability to predict TC genesis varies in time and space. Conditional probabilities when a model predicts genesis and more traditional performance metrics (e.g., critical success index) are calculated. The models are ranked among each other, and results show that the best-performing model varies from year to year. A spatial analysis of each model identifies preferred regions for genesis, and a temporal analysis indicates that model performance expectedly decreases as forecast hour (lead time) increases. Consensus forecasts show that the probability of genesis noticeably increases when multiple models predict the same genesis event. Overall, this study provides a climatology of objectively identified TC genesis forecasts in global models. The resulting verification statistics can be used operationally to help refine deterministic and probabilistic TC genesis forecasts and potentially improve the models examined.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.202 · 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