Surface observation of sand and dust storm in East Asia and its application in CUACE/Dust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The spatial-temporal distributions and sources of sand and dust storm (SDS) in East Asia from 2001 to 2006 were investigated on the basis of visibility and PM10 data from the routine SDS and weather monitoring networks run by CMA (China Meteorological Administration). A power functional relationships between PM10 and visibility was found among various regions generally with a good correlation (r2=0.90), especially in Asian SDS source regions. In addition, three SDS occurrence centers, i.e. western China, Mongolia and northern China, were identified with the Mongolia source contributing more dust to the downwind areas including Korea and Japan than other two sources. Generally, high PM10 concentrations were observed in most areas of northern China. The highest value was obtained in the center of western China with a spring daily mean value of 876 μgm−3, and the value in other source regions exceeds 200 μgm−3. These data sets together with the satellite observations in China form the main observation database for the evaluation and data assimilation of CUACE/Dust system – an operational SDS forecasting system for East Asia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".