Challenges of Operational Weather Forecast Verification and Evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Operational agencies face significant challenges related to the verification and evaluation of weather forecasts. These challenges were investigated in a series of online workshops and polls engaging operational personnel from six countries. Five key themes emerged: inadequate verification approaches for both existing and emerging products; incomplete and uncertain observations; difficulties in accurately capturing users’ real-world experiences using simplified metrics; poor communication and understanding of forecasts and complex verification information; and institutional factors such as limited resources, evolving meteorologist roles, and concerns over reputational damage. We identify nearly 50 operationally relevant scientific questions and suggest calls to action. Addressing these needs includes designing forecast systems with verification as a central consideration, enhancing the availability of observations, and developing and adopting community software systems. Additionally, we propose the establishment of an international community comprising environmental and social science researchers, statisticians, verification practitioners, and users to provide sustained support for this collective endeavor.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it