MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949668831 · doi:10.1080/1755876x.2019.1632128

Forecasting the severity of the Newfoundland iceberg season using a control systems model

2019· article· en· W2949668831 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Operational Oceanography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergHindcastHazardClimatologyMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeologySea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The iceberg hazard for the Grand Banks area to the east of Newfoundland varies dramatically from one year to the next. In some years no icebergs penetrate south of 48oN, while in others well over 1000 icebergs enter the main shipping lanes between Europe and NE North America. Advance knowledge of this seasonal hazard would have major implications for ship routing, as well as the resources required for maintaining an effective ice hazard service. Here, a Windowed Error Reduction Ratio control system identification approach is used to forecast the severity of the 2018 iceberg season off Newfoundland, in terms of the predicted number of icebergs crossing 48oN, as well as to hindcast iceberg numbers for 2017. The best estimates are for 766±297 icebergs crossing 48oN before the end of September 2017 and 685±207 for 2018. These are both above the recent observed average of 592 icebergs for that date, and substantially so for 2017. Given the bimodal nature of the annual iceberg number, this means that our predictions for both 2017 and 2018 are for a high iceberg season, with a 71% level of confidence. However, it is most likely that the 2018 iceberg numbers will be somewhat less than 1000, while our higher hindcast for 2017 is consistent with the observed level of 1008. Our verification analysis, covering the 20-year period up to 2016, shows our model’s correspondence to the high or low nature of the 48oN iceberg numbers is statistically robust to the 0.05 % level, with a skill level of 80%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.191 · 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