Hydrometeorological Short-Range Ensemble Forecasts in Complex Terrain. Part I: Meteorological Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the question of whether it is better to include lower-resolution members of a nested suite of numerical precipitation forecasts to increase ensemble size, or to utilize high-resolution members only to maximize forecast details in regions of complex terrain. A short-range ensemble forecast (SREF) system is formed from three models running in nested configurations at 108-, 36-, 12-, and 4-km horizontal grid spacings. The forecasts are sampled at 27 precipitation-gauge locations, representing 15 pluvial watersheds in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. This is a region of complex topography characterized by high mountains, glaciers, fjords, and land–ocean boundaries. Matching forecast–observation pairs are analyzed for two consecutive wet seasons: October 2003–March 2004 and October 2004–March 2005. The northwest coast of North America is typically subject to intense landfalling Pacific cyclones and frontal systems during these months. Using forecast analysis tools that are well designed for SREF systems, it is found that utilizing the full suite of ensemble members, including the lowest-resolution members, produced the highest quality probabilistic forecasts of precipitation. A companion paper assesses the economic value of SREF probabilistic forecasts for hydroelectric operations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".