MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044525751 · doi:10.1175/2010jamc2421.1

Application of Dual-Polarization Radar Melting-Layer Detection Algorithm

2010· article· en· W2044525751 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sudesh Boodoo, David Hudak, Norman Donaldson, Martin Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarAlgorithmRemote sensingMeteorologyGeologyPolarimetryComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A polarimetric melting-layer detection algorithm developed for an S-band radar has been modified for use by the King City C-band radar in southern Ontario, Canada. The technique ingests radar scan volume data to determine the melting-layer top and bottom and to diagnose temporal and spatial variations of the melting-layer heights. The thickness of the melting layer is also derived from the algorithm. Detailed case studies of two frontal systems over this region are described, comparing the radar-derived melting-layer height with aircraft measurement of the height of the 0°C isotherm. The analysis demonstrated the ability to detect rapidly changing melting-layer heights during frontal passages in the region. A range of melting-layer heights for a 3-yr period was investigated and produced detections from close to the ground up to about 5.0 km. Comparison of algorithm results to output from a numerical weather prediction model over the 3-yr period showed good agreement. The correlation coefficient of the heights of the 0°C wet-bulb temperature with the radar-derived melting-layer tops was 0.96. The time series of the algorithm output was used to detect frontal passages and showed that the algorithm should be useful for approximately 19 frontal passages per year in this region.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations51
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207