MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2039918738 · doi:10.1117/12.514453

Ground-based lidar measurement of liquid water content and effective droplet diameter in water clouds: instrumentation, retrieval method, and results

2004· article· en· W2039918738 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Bissonnette, G. Roy, Nathalie Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingLiquid water contentMonte Carlo methodScatteringEnvironmental scienceInstrumentation (computer programming)Water contentComputationCloud computingComputer scienceOpticsPhysicsGeologyAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lidar probing of dense water clouds gives rise to significant multiple scattering contributions. Instead of trying to mitigate the effect, we have developed methods to collect and angularly resolve the multiple scattering returns. The proposed retrieval method combines these measurements with a rapid semi-empirical computation method of the lidar multiple scattering contributions. Solutions are calculated for the extinction coefficient, the effective droplet diameter, the liquid water content and the rain rate. The paper reviews the main measurement methods, discusses briefly the concept and implementation of the retrieval technique, presents validation results obtained from Monte Carlo simulations, and compares lidar solutions for liquid water content and effective droplet diameter with in-cloud aircraft measurements. Good correlation is demonstrated for both simulation and field data. We conclude that multiple-scattering lidar is a practical option for the remote sensing of water cloud microphysical parameters up to the lidar penetration depths of typically 200 m.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds→French-language works237,207→