MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549328980 · doi:10.1029/2012jd017753

Analytical estimation of droplet concentration at cloud base

2012· article· en· W1549328980 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Pinsky, А. Хаин, I. P. Mazin, Alexei Korolev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupersaturationMixing (physics)Base (topology)Cloud baseSpectral lineMixing ratioCloud physicsCloud computingStatistical physicsMechanicsPhysicsComputational physicsMaterials scienceThermodynamicsMathematicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study a new method of calculating droplet concentration near cloud base is proposed. The ratio of maximum supersaturation Smax to the liquid water mixing ratio when Smax is reached near cloud base is found to be universal, and it does not depend on the vertical velocity w and droplet number concentration N. It is found that Smax depends on vertical velocity as Smax ∝ w3/4 and on droplet concentration as Smax ∝ N−1/2. The droplet concentration calculated using the simple approach agrees well with exact solutions obtained numerically using high precision parcel models. Comparison with the results of other parameterizations is presented. It is demonstrated that the approach proposed in the study can be applied to an arbitrary form of activation spectra or any CCN size distribution given either analytically or by tables. Moreover, it can be applied for the cases when the CCN size spectrum changes with time. Temperature dependencies of Smax and related quantities are analyzed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations72
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207