MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983395630 · doi:10.1175/2008waf2222210.1

A Study of the Error Covariance Matrix of Radar Rainfall Estimates in Stratiform Rain. Part II: Scale Dependence

2008· article· en· W1983395630 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc Berenguer, Isztar Zawadzki

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative precipitation estimationRadarMesoscale meteorologyEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationScale (ratio)Range (aeronautics)Remote sensingMeteorologyGeologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The contribution of various physical sources of uncertainty affecting radar rainfall estimates at the ground has been recently quantified at a resolution typically used in schemes assimilating rainfall at the ground onto mesoscale models. Here, the contribution of the two most important sources of uncertainty at nonattenuating wavelengths (the range-dependent error and the uncertainty due to the Z–R transformation) and their interaction are studied as a function of the resolution of radar observations. The analysis is carried out using a large dataset of collocated reflectivity profiles from the McGill S-band radar and disdrometric measurements obtained in stratiform rainfall at resolutions of 1 × 1, 5 × 5, and 15 × 15 km2. Results show that the errors affecting radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) have a strong dependence with range, and that their structure is scale dependent. At the analyzed resolutions, QPE errors are significantly correlated in time and over several grid points.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeather and ForecastingSame topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207