National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest
contest
The National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest, or NCWFC, was a yearly competition among colleges and Universities in the US run by Penn State. There were over 1000 participants from about 45 institutions. In 2006, the competition was transferred to the University of Oklahoma and run as the WxChallenge.
Organization
Entrants in the contest must be affiliated with a college or university, but they range in age and knowledge from undergraduates to professors. Each year, 13 cities are picked for forecasting; the current city changes every 2 weeks. Contestants forecast 4 days per week for the following day's high temperature (in Fahrenheit), low temperature, and precipitation (forecast by category).
The precipitation categories are:
0 -- no precipitation or trace
1 -- trace - 0.05", liquid water equivalent, inclusive
2 -- 0.06-0.24", inclusive
3 -- 0.25-0.49", inclusive
4 -- 0.50-0.99", inclusive
5 -- >=1.00"
One "error" point is given for each degree of error on temperature, and 4 error points are given for each error in precipitation category.
The public source identifies “National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest” as contest. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around National, Collegiate and Weather.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest”, the useful work is to connect “contest” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6971631. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1000 and 2006.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest primary sources, National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest archive and National research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “National Collegiate Weather Forecasting Contest” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.