MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3172423879 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-14317

Calibration of sea ice drift forecasts using random forest algorithms

2021· article· en· W3172423879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cyril Palerme, Malte Müller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoySea iceCalibrationInitializationMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceArcticAlgorithmRandom forestData setClimatologyArctic ice packComputer scienceOceanographyGeologyMachine learningMathematicsStatisticsGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing demand for accurate sea-ice forecasts in the Arctic due to increasing maritime traffic. Although the capabilities of numerical models steadily improve, sea-ice forecasts produced by numerical prediction systems are affected by biases. In order to reduce forecast errors, statistical methods can be used for calibration. In this study, two calibration methods have been developed for calibrating sea-ice drift forecasts from an operational prediction system (TOPAZ4) in the Arctic. These methods are based on random forest algorithms, a machine learning technique suitable for assessing non-linear relationships between a set of predictors and a target variable. While all the algorithms developed in this study use the same set of predictors, two set of algorithms have been developed using either buoy or synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) observations for the target variable. Furthermore, different algorithms have been developed for predicting the direction and the speed of sea-ice drift, as well as for different lead times. The random forest algorithms use predictor variables from sea-ice concentration observations during the initialization of the forecasts, sea-ice forecasts from the TOPAZ4 prediction system, wind forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, and some geographical information. The performances of the calibrated forecasts have been evaluated and compared to those from the TOPAZ4 forecasts using buoy observations from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. Depending on the calibration method, the mean absolute error is reduced, on average, between 5.9 % and 8.1 % for the direction, and between 7.1 % and 9.6 % for the speed of sea-ice drift. However, there is a large spatial variability in the performances of these algorithms, and the random forest algorithms have particularly poor performances in the Canadian Archipelago, an area characterized by narrow channels and the presence of landfast ice.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→