Evaluation of Cool-Season Extratropical Cyclones in a Multimodel Ensemble for Eastern North America and the Western Atlantic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper evaluates the extratropical cyclones within three operational global ensembles [the 20-member Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC), 20-member National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), and 50-member European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)]. The day-0–6 forecasts were evaluated over the eastern United States and western Atlantic for the 2007–15 cool seasons (October–March) using the ECMWF’s ERA-Interim dataset as the verifying analysis. The Hodges cyclone-tracking scheme was used to track cyclones using 6-h mean sea level pressure (MSLP) data. For lead times less than 72 h, the NCEP and ECMWF ensembles have comparable mean absolute errors in cyclone intensity and track, while the CMC errors are larger. For days 4–6 ECMWF has 12–18 and 24–30 h more accuracy for cyclone intensity than NCEP and CMC, respectively. All ensembles underpredict relatively deep cyclones in the medium range, with one area near the Gulf Stream. CMC, NCEP, and ECMWF all have a slow along-track bias that is significant from 24 to 90 h, and they have a left-of-track bias from 120 to 144 h. ECMWF has greater probabilistic skill for intensity and track than CMC and NCEP, while the 90-member multimodel ensemble (NCEP + CMC + ECMWF) has more probabilistic skill than any single ensemble. During the medium range, the ECMWF + NCEP + CMC multimodel ensemble has the fewest cases (1.9%, 1.8%, and 1.0%) outside the envelope compared to ECMWF (5.6%, 5.2%, and 4.1%) and NCEP (13.7%, 10.6%, and 11.0%) for cyclone intensity and along- and cross-track positions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".