MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046554225 · doi:10.1256/qj.03.120

Aircraft observations of cloud droplet number concentration: Implications for climate studies

2004· article· en· W2046554225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ismail Gültepe, George A. Isaac

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceRadiative forcingCloud forcingCloud computingForcing (mathematics)AerosolAtmosphere (unit)Planetary boundary layerFunction (biology)MeteorologyBoundary layerPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Droplet number concentration ( N d) is a major parameter affecting cloud physical processes and cloud optical characteristics. In most climate models, N d is usually assumed to be constant or a function of the droplet and aerosol number concentration ( N a). Three types of cloud systems over Canada, namely Arctic clouds, maritime boundary‐layer clouds, and winter storms, were studied to obtain values of N d as a function of temperature ( T ). The probability density function of N d was also calculated to show the variability of this parameter. The results show that N d reaches a maximum at about 10 °C (200 cm −3 ) and then decreases gradually to a minimum (∼1–3 cm −3 ) at about −35 ° C. A comparison of relationships between N d and N a indicates that estimates of N d from N a can have an uncertainty of about 30–50 cm −3 , resulting in up to a 42% uncertainty in cloud short‐wave radiative forcing. This study concludes that the typical fixed values of N d, which are ∼100 cm −3 and ∼200 cm −3 for maritime and continental clouds, respectively, and the present relationships of N d to N a, could result in a large uncertainty in the heat and moisture budgets of the earth's atmosphere. It is suggested that the use of relationships between N d and T can improve climate simulations. © Crown copyright, 2004. Royal Meteorological Society

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations96
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207