Objective evaluation of the Global Environmental Multiscale Model (GEM) with precipitation and temperature for Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Global Environmental Multiscale Model (GEM) is currently in operational use for data assimilation and forecasting at 25–15 km scales; regional 10 km scales over North America; and 2.5 km scales over Canada. To evaluate the GEM model for forecasting applications in Iran, global daily temperature and precipitation outputs of GEM at a 25 km scale were compared to data sets from hydrometeorological stations and the De Martonne climate classification method was used to demarcate climate zones for comparisons. GEM model outputs were compared to observations in each of these zones. The results show good agreement between GEM outputs and measured daily temperatures with Kling‐Gupta efficiencies of 0.76 for the arid, 0.71 for the semiarid, and 0.78 for the humid regions. There is also an agreement between GEM outputs and measured annual precipitation with differences of 50% for the arid, 36% for the semiarid, and 15% for the humid region. There is a ~13% systematic difference between the elevation of stations and the average elevation of corresponding GEM grid cells; differences in elevation associated with forcing data sets can be potentially corrected using environmental lapse rates. Compared with hydrometeorological data sets, the GEM model precipitation outputs are less accurate than temperature outputs, and this may influence the accuracy of potential Iranian forecasting operations utilizing GEM. The results of this study provide an understanding of the operation and limitations of the GEM model for climate change and hydro‐climatological studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".