Special Observing Period (SOP) data for the Year of Polar Prediction site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The rapid changes occurring in the polar regions require an improved understanding of the processes that are driving these changes. At the same time, increased human activities such as marine navigation, resource exploitation, aviation, commercial fishing, and tourism require reliable and relevant weather information. One of the primary goals of the World Meteorological Organization's Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) project is to improve the accuracy of numerical weather prediction (NWP) at high latitudes. During YOPP, two Canadian “supersites” were commissioned and equipped with new ground-based instruments for enhanced meteorological and system process observations. Additional pre-existing supersites in Canada, the United States, Norway, Finland, and Russia also provided data from ongoing long-term observing programs. These supersites collected a wealth of observations that are well suited to address YOPP objectives. In order to increase data useability and station interoperability, novel Merged Observatory Data Files (MODFs) were created for the seven supersites over two Special Observing Periods (February to March 2018 and July to September 2018). All observations collected at the supersites were compiled into this standardized NetCDF MODF format, simplifying the process of conducting pan-Arctic NWP verification and process evaluation studies. This paper describes the seven Arctic YOPP supersites, their instrumentation, data collection and processing methods, the novel MODF format, and examples of the observations contained therein. MODFs comprise the observational contribution to the model intercomparison effort, termed YOPP site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP). All YOPPsiteMIP MODFs are publicly accessible via the YOPP Data Portal (Whitehorse: https://doi.org/10.21343/a33e-j150, Huang et al., 2023a; Iqaluit: https://doi.org/10.21343/yrnf-ck57, Huang et al., 2023b; Sodankylä: https://doi.org/10.21343/m16p-pq17, O'Connor, 2023; Utqiaġvik: https://doi.org/10.21343/a2dx-nq55, Akish and Morris, 2023c; Tiksi: https://doi.org/10.21343/5bwn-w881, Akish and Morris, 2023b; Ny-Ålesund: https://doi.org/10.21343/y89m-6393, Holt, 2023; and Eureka: https://doi.org/10.21343/r85j-tc61, Akish and Morris, 2023a), which is hosted by MET Norway, with corresponding output from NWP models.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".