MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586366360

Testing of Cloud Microphysics Scheme with Snow Events

2008· article· en· W1586366360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Toshihisa Matsui, S. Lang, Robert Cifelli, C. D. Peters‐Lidard, Gail Skofronick Jackson, Steve Rutledge

Bibliographic record

VenueEGUGA · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeather Research and Forecasting ModelSnowEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGraupelGlobal Precipitation MeasurementSatelliteRadianceAdvanced Microwave Sounding UnitRemote sensingCloud coverPrecipitationCloud computingComputer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the grand challenges of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission is to improve precipitation measurements in mid- and high-latitudes during cold seasons through the use of high-frequency passive microwave radiometry. For this, the Weather Research Forecast (WRF) model with the Goddard microphysics scheme is coupled with the Satellite Data Simulation Unit (WRF-SDSU) that has been developed to facilitate the over-snowfall retrieval algorithm by providing virtual cloud library and microwave brightness temperature (To) measurements consistent to the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI). This study tested the Goddard cloud microphysics scheme in WRF in snowstorm events (January 20-22, 2007) over the Canadian CloudSat/CALIPSO Validation Project (C3VP) site up in Ontario, Canada. In this meeting, we will present the performance of the Goddard cloud microphysics scheme both with 2ice (ice and snow) and 3ice (ice, snow and graupel) as well as other WRF microphysics schemes. Results will be compared with the King Radar data. We will also use the WRF model outputs to drive the Goddard SDSU to calculate radiances and backscattering signals consistent to satellite direct observations. These simulated radiance are evaluated against the measurement from A-Train satellites.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEGUGASame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207