MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409201143 · doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2025.101214

Verification of operational Niño3.4 SST forecasts produced in South Africa since the 2015 El Niño event

2025· article· en· W4409201143 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Willem A. Landman, Anthony G. Barnston

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Research FoundationUniversity of MiamiNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)ClimatologyEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of operational seasonal forecasts in South Africa began in the early 1990s, as South African modellers published numerous papers describing the research and development supporting these forecast systems. While this effort focused largely on seasonal rainfall and temperature predictability over southern Africa, work has also gone into predictions of global sea-surface temperatures (SSTs), including predictions for the central Pacific Ocean, and particularly the ENSO-related Niño3.4 region. Here we present verification statistics of archived real-time Niño3.4 SST forecasts from multi-model forecasting systems developed respectively at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and at the University of Pretoria, both based in South Africa. These forecasting systems used forecasts produced by fully-coupled ocean-atmosphere models administered in the USA, and also by statistical models developed locally. Archived Niño3.4 SST forecast data are available continuously from 2015. The verification presented here covers a 9-year period beginning with forecasts for the 2015/16 El Niño event and ending with the 2023/24 El Niño event. In general, Niño3.4 forecast skill is limited during the boreal spring months and optimized during the boreal winter period when forecast variance is also largest. During boreal winter, probabilistic forecasts are able to discriminate between the El Niño, neutral and La Niña ENSO phases. Predictability of El Niño events is found to be highest of the three phases, with the lowest predictability for ENSO-neutral. Moreover, probability forecasts for El Niño and La Niña events are found to be mostly under-confident for high probability forecasts, and probabilities for neutral events are overestimated. A potential improvement in the probabilistic forecasts may be achieved by designing the climatological frequencies of the three forecast ENSO categories to match the observational definition based on ± 0.5 °C cutoffs.

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)0.006
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental DevelopmentSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207