More on the Scale Dependence of the Predictability of Precipitation Patterns: Extension to the 2009–13 CAPS Spring Experiment Ensemble Forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper analyzes the scale and case dependence of the predictability of precipitation in the Storm-Scale Ensemble Forecast (SSEF) system run by the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS) during the NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Experiments of 2008–13. The effect of different types of ensemble perturbation methodologies is quantified as a function of spatial scale. It is found that uncertainties in the large-scale initial and boundary conditions and in the model microphysical parameterization scheme can result in the loss of predictability at scales smaller than 200 km after 24 h. Also, these uncertainties account for most of the forecast error. Other types of ensemble perturbation methodologies were not found to be as important for the quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs). The case dependences of predictability and of the sensitivity to the ensemble perturbation methodology were also analyzed. Events were characterized in terms of the extent of the precipitation coverage and of the convective-adjustment time scale , an indicator of whether convection is in equilibrium with the large-scale forcing. It was found that events characterized by widespread precipitation and small values (representative of quasi-equilibrium convection) were usually more predictable than nonequilibrium cases. No significant statistical relationship was found between the relative role of different perturbation methodologies and precipitation coverage or .
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".