Modelling weather risk preferences with multi‐criteria decision analysis for an aerospace vehicle launch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Decision‐making under weather uncertainty is a challenge in several fields. When the decision process involves many stakeholders, frequently with different interpretations of the meteorological information, the process is even more complex. This work provides a quantitative decision model with a new index (called the weather decision index, WDI) to support the stakeholders in making real‐world choices according to their preferences regarding the uncertainty of weather information. The integrated model combines several methods such as problem structuring, multi‐criteria analysis, scenario planning and probabilistic weather forecast techniques. As a demonstration, the model was applied in the sounding rocket launch mission in the Brazilian Space Programme. The WDI captured stakeholders' behaviour related to three meteorological information attributes (probability, lead‐time and variables) and modelled the most important judgements of the decision maker; low probability or an extended lead‐time depreciates the meteorological information, and weather variables are not considered in the decisions, even with forecasts of extreme events. Modelling with the WDI brings a new perspective in weather‐related decision problems. The choice of alternatives no longer depends on a necessarily simplified optimization analysis, but rather on the decision maker's preferences about the possibly nonlinear trade‐offs between forecast reliability and lead‐time. The findings also increase understanding of the forecast decision maker's preferences and how to improve weather risk communication. The WDI provides a starting point for several applications, including early warning systems or climate change adaptation, for which reliable uncertainty estimates are accessible.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".