Machine Learning Models for the Seasonal Forecast of Winter Surface Air Temperature in North America
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 In this study, two machine learning (ML) models (support vector regression (SVR) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)) are developed to perform seasonal forecasts of the surface air temperature (SAT) in winter (December‐January‐February, DJF) in North America (NA). The seasonal forecast skills of the two ML models are evaluated via cross validation. The forecast results from one linear regression (LR) model, and two dynamic climate models are used for comparison. In the take‐one‐out hindcast experiment, the two ML models and the LR model show reasonable seasonal forecast skills for winter SAT in NA. Compared to the two dynamic models, the two ML models and the LR model have better forecast skill for the winter SAT over central NA, which is mainly derived from a skillful forecast of the second empirical orthogonal function (EOF) mode of winter SAT over NA. In general, the SVR model and XGBoost model hindcasts show better forecast performances than the LR model. However, the LR model shows less dependence on the size of the training data set than the SVR and XGBoost models. In the real forecast experiments during the period of 2011–2017, the two ML models exhibit better forecasting skills for the winter SAT over northern and central NA than do the two dynamic models. The results of this study suggest that the ML models may provide improved forecasting skill for seasonal forecasts of the winter climate in NA.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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