An evaluation of the Canadian global meteorological ensemble prediction system for short-term hydrological forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrological forecasting consists in the assessment of future streamflow. Current deterministic forecasts do not give any information concerning the uncertainty, which might be limiting in a decision-making process. Ensemble forecasts are expected to fill this gap. In July 2007, the Meteorological Service of Canada has improved its ensemble prediction system, which has been operational since 1998. It uses the GEM model to generate a 20-member ensemble on a 100 km grid, at mid-latitudes. This improved system is used for the first time for hydrological ensemble predictions. Five watersheds in Quebec (Canada) are studied: Chaudière, Châteauguay, Du Nord, Kénogami and Du Lièvre. An interesting 17-day rainfall event has been selected in October 2007. Forecasts are produced in a 3 h time step for a 3-day forecast horizon. The deterministic forecast is also available and it is compared with the ensemble ones. In order to correct the bias of the ensemble, an updating procedure has been applied to the output data. Results showed that ensemble forecasts are more skilful than the deterministic ones, as measured by the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS), especially for 72 h forecasts. However, the hydrological ensemble forecasts are under dispersed: a situation that improves with the increasing length of the prediction horizons. We conjecture that this is due in part to the fact that uncertainty in the initial conditions of the hydrological model is not taken into account.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".