MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997137713 · doi:10.1175/jam2502.1

Real-Time Comparisons of VPR-Corrected Daily Rainfall Estimates with a Gauge Mesonet

2007· article· en· W1997137713 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Interval (graph theory)PolarReflectivityRadarRemote sensingMeteorologyCartesian coordinate systemAtmospheric sciencesMathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsGeologyOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The relative skill of two vertical-profile-of-reflectivity (VPR) correction techniques for daily accumulations on a selected dataset and a real-time dataset has been verified. The first technique (C1) adjusts the 1-h rainfall amounts already derived on a Cartesian CAPPI map at an altitude of 1.5 km in a “one step” procedure using the range-dependent space–time-averaged VPR over the 1-h interval. The C2 technique corrects the nonconvective polar reflectivity measurements of each 5-min radar cycle that are also centered at a height of 1.5 km according to a VPR that is similarly derived but over a shorter time interval. The results emphasize the importance of applying a VPR correction scheme—in particular, in a climatic regime in which most of the liquid precipitation falls from stratiform echoes. The crucial importance of the choice of datasets is also underlined, causing differences in the final assessment that may be greater than those between the various algorithms. Both techniques perform well with selected events of low bright band and thus with the greatest potential for improvement—in particular, when the bias is removed in a post facto analysis. However, when the VPR algorithm is tested in a real-time environment consisting of less strong or higher brightband situations and faces a variety of day-to-day precipitation, the improvement is substantially lower. RMS errors are reduced only from 61% to 48% in contrast with the reduction from 117% to 43% seen with the smaller sample of selected events. This is because other sources of error—in particular, the variability in the radar reflectivity–rainfall rate (Z–R) relationship—are often of the same magnitude as the VPR errors. An example is provided that shows how the bias from an improper Z–R relationship can reduce the true skill of a real-time VPR correction scheme.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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