Gold Standard in selection of rainfall forecasting models for soybean crops region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rainfall data forecasting is essential in agricultural sciences due to impacts caused by water excess or deficit on crop growth. Our study aimed to develop a method to select rainfall forecast models using references with negligible error denoted as the gold standard. To this end, we used forecasting models from national centers such as Canadian Meteorological Center (CMC), European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), and Center for Weather Forecasting and Climate Studies (CPTEC). The study area comprised the western mesoregion of Paraná State (Brazil), and data were gathered from October to March between the soybean crop seasons of 2010/2011 and 2015/2016. Ten-day period clusters, corresponding to 240 h forecasts in the centers, were used to assess agreement with the gold standard. Our results showed that forecasting center selection must be based on rainfall value ranges and geographic locations. Selection according to the highest agreement with the gold standard was estimated at 76.9% for range 1 in CPTEC, 38.5% for range 2 and 4 in ECMWF, and 38.5% for range 3 in NCEP. In conclusion, the proposed method was efficient in selecting forecasting centers in areas of interest
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".