Evaluation of Soil Moisture in the Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System, Version 2.1 (CanSIPSv2.1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We evaluate the soil moisture hindcasts and the reconstruction runs giving the hindcasts initial conditions in version 2.1 of the Canadian Seasonal to Interannual Prediction System (CanSIPSv2.1). Different strategies are used to initialize the hindcasts for the two CanSIPSv2.1 models, CanCM4i and the coupled Global Environmental Multiscale, version 5.1, (GEM5)–NEMO model (GEM5-NEMO), with contrasting impacts on the soil moisture initial conditions and forecast performance. Forecast correlation skill is decomposed into contributions from persistence of the initial anomalies and contributions not linked to persistence, with performance largely driven by the accuracy of the initial conditions in regions of strong persistence. Seasonal soil moisture correlation skill is significant for several months into the hindcasts depending on initial and target months, with contributions not linked to persistence becoming more notable at longer lead times. For the first 2–4 months, the quality of CanSIPSv2.1 ensemble mean forecasts tends to be higher on average during summer and fall and is comparable to that of the best performing model, whereas CanSIPSv2.1 outperforms the single models during spring and winter. For longer lead times, remote climate influences from the Pacific Ocean are notable and contribute to predictable soil moisture variability in teleconnected regions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".