An NWP Model Intercomparison of Surface Weather Parameters in the European Arctic during the Year of Polar Prediction Special Observing Period Northern Hemisphere 1
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increased human activity in the Arctic calls for accurate and reliable weather predictions. This study presents an intercomparison of operational and/or high-resolution models in an attempt to establish a baseline for present-day Arctic short-range forecast capabilities for near-surface weather (pressure, wind speed, temperature, precipitation, and total cloud cover) during winter. One global model [the high-resolution version of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System (IFS-HRES)], and three high-resolution, limited-area models [Applications of Research to Operations at Mesoscale (AROME)-Arctic, Canadian Arctic Prediction System (CAPS), and AROME with Météo-France setup (MF-AROME)] are evaluated. As part of the model intercomparison, several aspects of the impact of observation errors and representativeness on the verification are discussed. The results show how the forecasts differ in their spatial details and how forecast accuracy varies with region, parameter, lead time, weather, and forecast system, and they confirm many findings from mid- or lower latitudes. While some weaknesses are unique or more pronounced in some of the systems, several common model deficiencies are found, such as forecasting temperature during cloud-free, calm weather; a cold bias in windy conditions; the distinction between freezing and melting conditions; underestimation of solid precipitation; less skillful wind speed forecasts over land than over ocean; and difficulties with small-scale spatial variability. The added value of high-resolution limited area models is most pronounced for wind speed and temperature in regions with complex terrain and coastlines. However, forecast errors grow faster in the high-resolution models. This study also shows that observation errors and representativeness can account for a substantial part of the difference between forecast and observations in standard verification.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it