The YOPP site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP) phase 1: project overview and Arctic winter forecast evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Although the quality of weather forecasts in the polar regions is improving, forecast skill there still lags the lower latitudes. So far there have been relatively few efforts to evaluate processes in Numerical Weather Prediction systems using in-situ and remote sensing datasets from meteorological observatories in the terrestrial Arctic and Antarctic, compared to the mid-latitudes. Progress has been limited both by the heterogeneous nature of observatory and forecast data but also by limited availability of the parameters needed to perform process-oriented evaluation in multi-model forecast archives. The YOPP site Model Inter-comparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP) is addressing this gap by producing Merged Observatory Data Files (MODFs) and Merged Model Data Files (MMDFs), bringing together observations and forecast data at polar meteorological observatories in a format designed to facilitate process-oriented evaluation. An evaluation of forecast performance was performed at seven Arctic sites, focussing on the first YOPP Special Observing Period in the Northern Hemisphere (SOP1), February and March 2018. It demonstrated that although the characteristics of forecast skill vary between the different sites and systems, an underestimation in boundary layer temperature variance across models, which goes hand in hand with an inability to capture cold extremes, is a common issue at several sites. Diagnostic analysis using surface fluxes suggests that this is at least partly related to insufficient thermal representation of the land-surface in the models, which all use a single layer snow model.
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 | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".