MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619524259 · doi:10.15191/nwajom.2017.0505

Forecasting the Inland Extent of Lake Effect Snow Bands Downwind of Lake Ontario

2017· article· en· W2619524259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
JOSEPH P. VILLANI, Michael L. Jurewicz, Karin Reinhold

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Operational Meteorology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyMeteorologyGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the inland extent (IE) of lake effect snow (LES) is an ongoing operational forecasting challenge at the Albany and Binghamton National Weather Service (NWS) forecast offices, and several other NWS forecast offices in the Great Lakes region.Assuming favorable conditions for development of LES, determining how far inland snow bands will extend is critical to forecasters making decisions supporting the NWS watch/ warning/advisory program and resulting impact-based decision support services.This research sought to identify which atmospheric parameters commonly have the greatest influence on how far inland LES bands travel, and to develop forecasting techniques to assist meteorologists.Single band LES events for the 2006-2009 winter seasons were examined downwind of Lake Ontario.The IE of LES bands was measured over the duration of each event and broken into quartiles.The quartiles were used to create categories for IE (short, moderate, and long).Several parameters were analyzed, using statistical correlations at data points within, and just outside of, LES bands.Box-and-whiskers plots were constructed for individual parameters relative to each IE category.The most strongly correlated parameters to IE included existence of a multi-lake/upstream moisture source connection (MLC), mixed-layer (ML) stability (represented by lake-air temperature differentials), 0-1-km bulk shear, and mean ML wind speed.LES bands featuring an MLC showed a greater tendency to progress farther inland, compared to those without.A predictive equation for forecasting IE of LES downwind of Lake Ontario was developed from a statistical model using a stepwise and backwards selection algorithm.A crossvalidation method was used to determine skill.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Operational MeteorologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207