2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
286
1
4

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 334 publications
(294 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
3
286
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Each of the 12 instances included a single alternate parameterization: (1,2) S dg 33% ( 0.012 and 0.024 nm −1 ), (3) S dg dynamically calculated using Lee et al [7], (4,5) S bp from Lee et al [7] 33%; (6,7) OC-derived C a 33% prior to input into Bricaud et al [14]; (8) a ϕ λ from Bricaud et al [14] with C a fixed at 0.18 mg m −3 ; (9) a ϕ λ from Ciotti and Bricaud [17] with a size fraction of 0.5; (10) G λ from Morel et al [22], (11) optimization using linear matrix inversion, and (12) optimization considering only 400 ≤ λ ≤ 600 nm. We quantified spectral changes in modeled IOPs for each alternate parameterization (relative to the baseline GIOP-DC configuration) using Type II regression statistics, estimates of ΔIOP, and Taylor [36] and Target [37] summary diagrams. The latter provide convenient means for simultaneously considering magnitudes of deviations, correlations, and biases between the alternate runs and GIOP-DC.…”
Section: F Sensitivity Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each of the 12 instances included a single alternate parameterization: (1,2) S dg 33% ( 0.012 and 0.024 nm −1 ), (3) S dg dynamically calculated using Lee et al [7], (4,5) S bp from Lee et al [7] 33%; (6,7) OC-derived C a 33% prior to input into Bricaud et al [14]; (8) a ϕ λ from Bricaud et al [14] with C a fixed at 0.18 mg m −3 ; (9) a ϕ λ from Ciotti and Bricaud [17] with a size fraction of 0.5; (10) G λ from Morel et al [22], (11) optimization using linear matrix inversion, and (12) optimization considering only 400 ≤ λ ≤ 600 nm. We quantified spectral changes in modeled IOPs for each alternate parameterization (relative to the baseline GIOP-DC configuration) using Type II regression statistics, estimates of ΔIOP, and Taylor [36] and Target [37] summary diagrams. The latter provide convenient means for simultaneously considering magnitudes of deviations, correlations, and biases between the alternate runs and GIOP-DC.…”
Section: F Sensitivity Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For evaluating the success of the physical model, we used Taylor & Target diagrams (Jolli et al, 2009). …”
Section: Skill Assessment Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relative difference plot (Figure 9,right) Figure 12) demonstrated that for the DW region, both GIOP and QAA-derived a t (443), b bp (443) and K d (488) were in good agreement with those of SWIM, evidenced by normalized biases and unbiased root mean squared differences (uRMSD) that were less than 1.0. Based on Jolliff et al [2009], we considered Target plot data points that fell outside a radius of 1.0 from the origin (depicted as black circles, bottom row of Figure 12) as points that did not suitably agree with SWIM. We hence refer to the area encompassed by a circle of radius 5 1.0 about the origin in a Target plot as the ''performance marker region.…”
Section: Deep Water Regionmentioning
confidence: 99%