MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385688001 · doi:10.1017/9781316459768.004

The Forecast Factory

2023· book-chapter· en· W4385688001 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicScience and Climate Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeather predictionVon Neumann architectureMeteorologyClimatologyWeather forecastingDownscalingWork (physics)Energy balanceClimate changeEnvironmental scienceHistoryGeographyComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringPhysicsPrecipitationOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate and weather are intimately connected. Weather describes what we experience day-to-day, while climate describes what we expect over the longer term. So it’s not surprising the models used to understand weather and climate share much of the same history. While Arrhenius’s model ignored weather altogether, focusing instead on the energy balance of the planet, modern climate models grew out of the early work on numerical weather forecasting – the basic equations for how winds and ocean currents move energy around, under the influence of the Earth’s rotation and gravity. The equations for these circulation patterns were first worked out by Arrhenius’s colleague, Vilhelm Bjerknes, in 1904, but it wasn’t until the invention of the electronic computer that John von Neumann put them to work forecasting the weather. The approach developed by von Neumann’s group now forms the core of today’s weather forecasting models .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it