MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403739622 · doi:10.1029/2024jd041124

Aeolus Winds Improve Arctic Weather Prediction

2024· article· en· W4403739622 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chih‐Chun Chou, Paul J. Kushner, Zen Mariani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsArcticMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceWeather predictionClimatologyThe arcticGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has been proven that assimilating winds from the Aeolus global Doppler Wind Lidar (DWL) would enhance the predictive skill of weather forecast models. In this study, we use a series of observing system experiments to examine how currently assimilated “operational” wind products and Aeolus winds impact environment and climate change Canada's global forecast system over the data‐sparse Arctic region. Aeolus winds improve the tropospheric wind and temperature forecasts by about 0.7%–0.9% of error reduction (a 15%–20% effect compared to the impact of operational wind products) while having little impact on specific humidity. In particular, Aeolus winds have an impact on forecasts of strong wind days on the wind and temperature fields that is double the impact for weaker wind days. On the other hand, the operational wind products do not show as large a discrepancy in impact between forecasts of disturbed and normal days. These findings suggest significant potential for global DWL observations to enhance severe weather prediction in polar regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→