Scanning ARM Cloud Radars. Part II: Data Quality Control and Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The scanning Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program cloud radars (SACRs) are the primary instruments for documenting the four-dimensional structure and evolution of clouds within a 20–30-km radius of the ARM fixed and mobile sites. Here, the postprocessing of the calibrated SACR measurements is discussed. First, a feature mask algorithm that objectively determines the presence of significant radar returns is described. The feature mask algorithm is based on the statistical properties of radar receiver noise. It accounts for atmospheric emission and is applicable even for SACR profiles with few or no signal-free range gates. Using the nearest-in-time atmospheric sounding, the SACR radar reflectivities are corrected for gaseous attenuation (water vapor and oxygen) using a line-by-line absorption model. Despite having a high pulse repetition frequency, the SACR has a narrow Nyquist velocity limit and thus Doppler velocity folding is commonly observed. An unfolding algorithm that makes use of a first guess for the true Doppler velocity using horizontal wind measurements from the nearest sounding is described. The retrieval of the horizontal wind profile from the hemispherical sky range–height indicator SACR scan observations and/or nearest sounding is described. The retrieved horizontal wind profile can be used to adaptively configure SACR scan strategies that depend on wind direction. Several remaining challenges are discussed, including the removal of insect and second-trip echoes. The described algorithms significantly enhance SACR data quality and constitute an important step toward the utilization of SACR measurements for cloud research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".