MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation of the North American multi-model ensemble for monthly precipitation forecast

2021· article· en· W3119891744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Defi Yusti Faidah, Heri Kuswanto, Suhartono Suhartono

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceClimatologyQuantitative precipitation forecastMeteorologyAtmospheric researchForecast skillGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The North American multi-model ensemble (NMME) is a multi-model seasonal forecasting system consisting of a collection of models generated from several climate modelling centers. This research examined the monthly precipitation in North Maluku generated by five NMME models. The purpose of this research is to assess the performance of monthly precipitation prediction by using RMSE and Rank Histogram analysis. The NMME models are verified against observed precipitation. The analysis shows that they are biased and underdispersive. Among the five NMME models, the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies (COLA) exhibits the best predictive skill. The performances of the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) are relatively worse than that of the other models. The COLA model shows relatively high skill when used to forecast May-November monthly precipitation. Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) model shows high skill in December-April periods. The ensemble forecast is calibrated with the BMA approach in order to obtain reliable forecasts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference Series→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→