Comparisons of CLOVAR windprofiler horizontal winds with radiosondes and CMC regional analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Canadian (London, Ontario) VHF Atmospheric Radar (CLOVAR) windprofiler radar near London, Ontario is a relatively new tool for atmospheric wind measurements (Hocking, 1994, 1997a). In order to verify its proper performance, vertical profiles of horizontal winds were compared with other wind estimates available during the period January 1996 to November 1997. Comparisons with co‐located radiosonde flights (a series of 29 flights in May–June 1996, and another of 8 flights in May–July 1997) showed excellent agreement between the two techniques. In addition, comparisons with horizontal winds measured by routine radiosonde balloons launched some 180 km south‐west of London, at White Lake (Detroit), and some 210 km east of London at Buffalo Airport, showed good agreement, considering the meteorological differences which would be expected at these ranges. A further comparison between winds measured with the radar, and winds extracted for London from Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) regional analyses, showed very good agreement. These favourable intercomparisons have verified that the CLOVAR is a reliable tool for observing horizontal winds, and have provided interesting insight into the CMC model.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".