Gold Standard Agreement Model for Precipitation Forecast in Paraná Using Bootstrap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demand for quality weather forecasts has increased in the last decades, leading national meteorological centers to develop new forecasting models. These models have parameterizations which can produce different predictions for the same location and agrometeorological variable. In the state of Paraná - Brazil, studies on rain forecasting are important for planning the soybean crop. The objective of this study was to compare, based on a gold-standard and using bootstrapping residuals, forecasts of total rainfall by virtual stations of the following centers: Canadian Meteorological Center (CMC), European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and Center for Weather Forecasting and Climate Studies (CPTEC). Gold-standard measurements were obtained from Meteorological System of Paraná (SIMEPAR) meteorological stations. The studied region was the state of Paraná, in October–March of the harvest years 2011/2012–2015/2016; forecast ranges were 24 and 240 hours. Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD), focused on data mining techniques, was the chosen methodology. In the data preprocessing stage, spatial and temporal stratification, cleansing and grouping were performed. For the comparisons, 24 h and 240 h weather forecasts were used, being grouped in five-day and ten-day periods, respectively, and coefficients of agreement with the gold-standard measure were calculated. The choice of forecast center should consider the geographic location of a certain pluviometric station, and the temporal range of the forecast, according to its measure of agreement with the gold standard measure. Spatial variations of forecasting centers were identified within the mesoregions, which suggests the employment of different forecasting centers in a certain mesoregion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".