MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415460327 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-4925

A spread-versus-error framework to reliably quantify the potential for subseasonal windows of forecast opportunity

2025· article· en· W4415460327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip Rupp, Jonas Spaeth, Thomas Birner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPredictabilityReliability (semiconductor)Forecast skillVariance (accounting)Ensemble averageEnsemble forecastingRepresentation (politics)Fidelity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Mid-latitude forecast skill at subseasonal timescales often depends on 'windows of opportunity' that may be opened by slowly varying modes such as ENSO, the MJO or stratospheric variability. Most previous work has focused on the predictability of ensemble-mean states, with less attention paid to the reliability of such forecasts and how it relates to ensemble spread, which directly reflects intrinsic forecast uncertainty. Here, we introduce a spread-versus-error framework based on the Spread-Reliability Slope (SRS) to quantify whether fluctuations in ensemble spread provide reliable information about variations in forecast error. Using ECMWF S2S forecasts and ERA5 reanalysis data, aided by idealised toy-model experiments, we show that reliability is controlled by at least three intertwined factors: sampling error, the magnitude of physically driven spread variability and model fidelity in representing that variability. Regions such as northern Europe, the mid-east Pacific, and the tropical west Pacific exhibit robustly high SRS values (≈ 0.6 or greater for 50-member ensembles), consistent with robust modulation by slowly varying teleconnections. In contrast, areas like eastern Canada show little or no reliability, even for 100-member ensembles, reflecting limited low-frequency modulation of forecast uncertainty. We further demonstrate two practical implications: (i) a simple variance rescaling yields a post-processed 'corrected spread' that enforces reliability and may help to bridge ensemble output with user needs; and (ii) time averaging effectively boosts ensemble size, allowing even 10-member ensembles to achieve reliability of spread fluctuations comparable to larger ensembles. Finally, we discuss possible links to the signal-to-noise paradox and emphasize that adequate representation of ensemble spread variability is crucial for exploiting subseasonal windows of opportunity.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations→French-language works237,207→