MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390725784 · doi:10.1175/waf-d-23-0017.1

Comparison of Clustering Approaches in a Multimodel Ensemble for U.S. East Coast Cold Season Extratropical Cyclones

2024· article· en· W4390725784 on OpenAlex
Benjamin M. Kiel, Brian A. Colle

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtratropical cycloneClimatologyEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyCluster analysisGeographyComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several clustering approaches are evaluated for 1–9-day forecasts using a multimodel ensemble that includes the GEFS, ECMWF, and Canadian ensembles. Six clustering algorithms and three clustering spaces are evaluated using mean sea level pressure (MSLP) and 12-h accumulated precipitation (APCP) for cool-season extratropical cyclones across the Northeast United States. Using the MSLP cluster membership to obtain the APCP clusters is also evaluated, along with applying clustering determined at one lead time to cluster forecasts at a different lead time. Five scenarios from each clustering algorithm are evaluated using displacement and intensity/amount errors from the scenario nearest to the MSLP and 12-h APCP analyses in the NCEP GFS and ERA5, respectively. Most clustering strategies yield similar improvements over the full ensemble mean and are similar in probabilistic skill except that 1) intensity displacement space gives lower MSLP displacement and intensity errors; and 2) Euclidean space and agglomerative hierarchical clustering, when using either full or average linkage, struggle to produce reasonably sized clusters. Applying clusters derived from MSLP to 12-h APCP forecasts is not as skillful as clustering by 12-h APCP directly, especially if several members contain little precipitation. Use of the same cluster membership for one lead time to cluster the forecast at another lead time is less skillful than clustering independently at each forecast lead time. Finally, the number of members within each cluster does not necessarily correspond with the best forecast, especially at the longer lead times, when the probability of the smallest cluster being the best scenario was usually underestimated. Significance Statement Numerical weather prediction ensembles are widely used, but more postprocessing tools are necessary to help forecasters interpret and communicate the possible outcomes. This study evaluates various clustering approaches, combining a large number of model forecasts with similar attributes together into a small number of scenarios. The 1–9-day forecasts of both sea level pressure and 12-h precipitation are used to evaluate the clustering approaches for a large number of U.S. East Coast winter cyclones, which is an important forecast problem for this region.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.147 · 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