MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020307155 · doi:10.1175/jas3563.1

Modeling of the Melting Layer. Part III: The Density Effect

2005· article· en· W2020307155 on OpenAlexaff
Isztar Zawadzki, Wanda Szyrmer, Cameron Bell, Frédéric Fabry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSnowflakePrecipitationSupercoolingRadarAtmospheric sciencesLiquid water contentAtmosphere (unit)Rain and snow mixedEnvironmental scienceFlux (metallurgy)MeteorologyMaterials scienceGeologyPhysicsCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A model of the melting snow and its radar reflectivity is presented here. The main addition to previous description of the melting layer is the explicit introduction of snow density as a variable. The model is validated with radar observations. Differences in brightband intensity for comparable precipitation rates are related here to the coexistence of supercooled cloud water (SCW) with snow above the melting level leading to riming and change in snow density. Cases where riming was suspected were selected according to the characteristics of the vertical profile of reflectivity flux above the melting layer and vertical Doppler velocities faster than expected from low-density snow. For stratiform precipitation with a melting layer, high snow-to-rain velocity ratio indicates high-density snow and consequently a small peak-to-rain reflectivity difference is expected. This relationship was computed from the model and confirmed with vertically pointing radar observations. In spite of the complexity of the physical processes present in the melting layer the model appears to capture the essential elements.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations106
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207