Validation of WRF forecasts for the Chajnantor region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses the performance of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to represent the near-surface weather conditions and the precipitable water vapour (PWV) in the Chajnantor plateau, in the north of Chile, from 2007 April to December. The WRF model shows a very good performance forecasting the near-surface temperature and zonal wind component, although it overestimates the 2 m water vapour mixing ratio and underestimates the 10 m meridional wind component. The model represents very well the seasonal, intraseasonal and the diurnal variation of PWV. However, the PWV errors increase after the 12 h of simulation. Errors in the simulations are larger than 1.5 mm only during 10 per cent of the study period, they do not exceed 0.5 mm during 65 per cent of the time and they are below 0.25 mm more than 45 per cent of the time, which emphasizes the good performance of the model to forecast the PWV over the region. The misrepresentation of the near-surface humidity in the region by the WRF model may have a negative impact on the PWV forecasts. Thus, having accurate forecasts of humidity near the surface may result in more accurate PWV forecasts. Overall, results from this, as well as recent studies, supports the use of the WRF model to provide accurate weather forecasts for the region, particularly for the PWV, which can be of great benefit for astronomers in the planning of their scientific operations and observing time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".