Determining the Flight Icing Threat to Aircraft with Single-Layer Cloud Parameters Derived from Operational Satellite Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An algorithm is developed to determine the flight icing threat to aircraft utilizing quantitative information on clouds derived from meteorological satellite data as input. Algorithm inputs include the satellite-derived cloud-top temperature, thermodynamic phase, water path, and effective droplet size. The icing-top and -base altitude boundaries are estimated from the satellite-derived cloud-top and -base altitudes using the freezing level obtained from numerical weather analyses or a lapse-rate approach. The product is available at the nominal resolution of the satellite pixel. Aircraft pilot reports (PIREPs) over the United States and southern Canada provide direct observations of icing and are used extensively in the algorithm development and validation on the basis of correlations with Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite imager data. Verification studies using PIREPs, Tropospheric Airborne Meteorological Data Reporting, and NASA Icing Remote Sensing System data indicate that the satellite algorithm performs reasonably well, particularly during the daytime. The algorithm is currently being run routinely using data taken from a variety of satellites across the globe and is providing useful information on icing conditions at high spatial and temporal resolutions that are unavailable from any other source.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".