MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Intercomparison of Radiation Codes for Retrieving Upper–Tropospheric Humidity in the 6.3–<i>m</i>m Band: A Report from the First GVaP Workshop

2000· article· en· W2001857672 on OpenAlexaff
Brian J. Soden, Stephen Tjemkes, Johannes Schmetz, Roger Saunders, John J. Bates, Bryon Ellingson, Richard Engelen, Louis Garand, Darren L. Jackson, Gary J. Jedlovec, Thomas J. Kleespies, David L. Randel, Peter Joseph Rayer, Eric P. Salathé, M. D. Schwarzkopf, N. A. Scott, Byung-Ju Sohn, S. De Souza-Machado, L. Larrabee Strow, David C. Tobin, Duncan L. Turner, Paul van Delst, Tobias Wehr

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsGLS Industries (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater vaporRadianceEnvironmental scienceTroposphereAtmospheric sciencesZenithMeteorologyHumidityWater cycleBlack-body radiationComputational physicsRemote sensingPhysicsRadiationOpticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intercomparison of radiation codes used in retrieving upper-tropospheric humidity (UTH) from observations in the ν2 (6.3 μm) water vapor absorption band was performed. This intercomparison is one part of a coordinated effort within the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Water Vapor Project to assess our ability to monitor the distribution and variations of upper-tropospheric moisture from spaceborne sensors. A total of 23 different codes, ranging from detailed line-by-line (LBL) models, to coarser-resolution narrowband (NB) models, to highly parameterized single-band (SB) models participated in the study. Forward calculations were performed using a carefully selected set of temperature and moisture profiles chosen to be representative of a wide range of atmospheric conditions. The LBL model calculations exhibited the greatest consistency with each other, typically agreeing to within 0.5 K in terms of the equivalent blackbody brightness temperature (Tb). The majority of NB and SB models agreed to within ±1 K of the LBL models, although a few older models exhibited systematic Tb biases in excess of 2 K. A discussion of the discrepancies between various models, their association with differences in model physics (e.g., continuum absorption), and their implications for UTH retrieval and radiance assimilation is presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207