Comprehensive evaluation of typical planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterization schemes in China – Part 2: Influence of uncertainty factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This study focuses on the uncertainties that influence numerical simulation results of meteorological fields (horizontal resolution: 75, 15, and 3 km; vertical resolution: 48 and 62 levels; near-surface (N-S) scheme: MM5 and Eta schemes; initial and boundary conditions: Final (FNL) and European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) reanalysis data; underlying surface update: model default and latest updates; model version: version 3.6.1 and 3.9.1). By further evaluating and analyzing the uncertainty factors, it is expected to provide relevance for those scholars devoted to factor analysis in order to make the results closer to the observed values. In this study, a total of 12 experiments are set up to analyze the effects of the uncertainties mentioned above, and the following conclusions are drawn: (1) horizontal resolution has a greater effect than vertical resolution; (2) the simulated effects of temperature and wind speed in the N-S scheme are smaller than those in the planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme; (3) the initial and boundary conditions of different products have the most remarkable effect on relative humidity, while the simulation results of ECMWF data are the best; (4) the updates with urban and water bodies as the underlying surface have a more significant contribution to the meteorological fields, especially on temperature; and (5) for the PBL parameterization schemes, the update of the model version has less impact on the simulation results because each update has small changes and no major changes overall. In general, the configuration of uncertainties needs to be considered comprehensively according to what you need in order to obtain the best simulation results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".