Calibration of sea ice drift forecasts using random forest algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Developing accurate sea-ice drift forecasts is essential to support decision making of maritime end-users operating in the Arctic. In this study, two calibration methods have been developed for improving 10-day sea-ice drift forecasts from an operational sea-ice prediction system (TOPAZ4). The methods are based on random forest algorithms (supervised machine learning models) and have been trained using either drifting buoy or synthetic-aperture radar observations for the target variables. 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. Overall, the algorithms trained with buoy observations have the best performances when the forecasts are evaluated using drifting buoys as reference. However, there is a large spatial variability in these results, and the algorithms trained with buoy observations have particularly poor performances for predicting the speed of sea-ice drift in the Canadian Archipelago, along the east coast of Greenland, and north of Svalbard. In these areas, the algorithms trained with SAR observations have better performances for predicting the speed of sea-ice drift.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".