Tropical Cyclone Forecasts in the DIMOSIC Project—Medium‐Range Forecast Models With Common Initial Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The tropical cyclone (TC) forecast skill of the eight global medium‐range forecast models which are participating in the DIfferent Models, Same Initial Conditions project is investigated in this study. Each model was used to generate 10‐day forecasts from the same initial conditions provided by the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts. There are a total of 123 initial dates spanning in one year from June 2018 to June 2019 at 3‐day intervals. The TC track and intensity forecasts are evaluated against the best track data set. TC‐related precipitation and tropical cyclogenesis forecasts are also compared to explore the differences and similarities of TC forecasts across the models. This comparison of TC forecasts allows model developers in different centers to benchmark their model against other models, with the impact of the initial condition quality removed. The verifications reveal that most models show slow‐moving and right‐of‐track biases in their TC track forecasts. Also, a common dry bias in TC‐related precipitation indicates a general deficiency in TC intensity and convection in the models which should be related to insufficient model resolution. These findings provide important references for future model developments.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".