Ozone ensemble forecasts: 1. A new ensemble design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new Ozone Ensemble Forecast System (OEFS) is tested as a technique to improve the accuracy of real‐time photochemical air quality modeling. The performance of 12 different forecasts along with their ensemble mean is tested against the observations during 11–15 August 2004, over five monitoring stations in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada, a population center in a complex coastal mountain setting. The 12 ensemble members are obtained by driving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Models‐3/Community Multiscale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) with two mesoscale meteorological models, each run at two resolutions (12‐ and 4‐km): the Mesoscale Compressible Community (MC2) model and the Penn State/NCAR mesoscale (MM5) model. Moreover, CMAQ is run for three emission scenarios: a control run, a run with 50% more NOx emissions, and a run with 50% fewer. For the locations and days used to test this new OEFS, the ensemble mean is the best forecast if ranked using correlation, gross error, and root mean square error and has average performance when evaluated with the unpaired peak prediction accuracy. Ensemble averaging removes part of the unpredictable components of the physical and chemical processes involved in the ozone fate, resulting in a more skilful forecast when compared to any deterministic ensemble member. There is not one of the 12 individual forecasts that clearly outperforms the others on the basis of the four statistical parameters considered here. A lagged‐averaged OEFS is also tested as follows. The 12‐member OEFS is expanded to an 18‐member OEFS by adding the second day from the six 12‐km “yesterday” forecasts to the “today” ensemble forecast. The 18‐member ensemble does not improve the ensemble mean forecast skill. Neither correlation nor a relationship between ensemble spread and forecast error is evident.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".