MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988704990 · doi:10.1175/2010jtecha1402.1

The Effect of Radial Velocity Gridding Artifacts on Variationally Retrieved Vertical Velocities

2010· article· en· W1988704990 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Collis, Alain Protat, Kao‐Shen Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Spurious relationshipLinear interpolationRadarSimple (philosophy)MeteorologyComputer scienceRadial velocityGeologyAlgorithmImage (mathematics)PhysicsComputer visionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article investigates the source and impact of artifacts produced by ordered linear interpolation techniques on variationally retrieved updraft intensities. Qualitative reasoning for the generation of periodic perturbations in gridded products is presented, and a simple analytical investigation into the impact of gridding artifacts on updraft retrieval is carried out. By projecting a nonconvergent flow typical of Darwin, Australia, onto the viewing geometry of a scanning radar, a numerical assessment of the impact of gridding artifacts is carried out. A simple enhancement to ordered linear interpolation, mixed-order linear interpolation, is proposed to reduce gridding artifacts. Radial velocity grids produced using both techniques are used to investigate the generation of spurious updrafts, with the simple ordered linear interpolation technique producing erroneous updrafts on the order of 2 m s−1. To investigate the impact on vertical velocities retrieved from a real weather event, radar-derived measurements taken during the active monsoon phase of Tropical Warm Pool International Cloud Experiment are gridded using both techniques, and vertical velocities are retrieved and contrasted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207