MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024228238 · doi:10.1175/waf842.1

A Unique Satellite Perspective of the 13–14 January 2004 Record Cold Outbreak in the Northeast

2005· article· en· W2024228238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven A. Ackerman, A. Scott Bachmeier, Kathleen I. Strabala, Mathew M. Gunshor

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArcticSnowAir mass (solar energy)Cold frontGeostationary Operational Environmental SatelliteWarm frontGeostationary orbitClimatologySatellitePhysical geographyOceanographyGeologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A cold, dry arctic air mass occupied southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States on 13–14 January 2004. This air mass was quite dry—total column precipitable water values at Pickle Lake, Ontario, Canada, and The Pas, Manitoba, Canada, were as low as 0.02 in. (0.5 mm)—allowing significant amounts of radiation originating from the surface to be detected using Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) 6.5-μm “water vapor channel” imagery. On this day the strong thermal gradient between the very cold snow-covered land surface in southern Canada and the warmer, unfrozen, cloud-free water along the northern portion of the Great Lakes was quite evident in GOES-12 imager water vapor channel data. Several hours later, as the cold dry air mass moved eastward, the coast of Maine, Cape Cod, and the Saint Lawrence River were also apparent in the water vapor channel imagery.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeather and ForecastingSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207