MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064766834 · doi:10.1256/qj.02.149

Solar radiative transfer for stratiform clouds with horizontal variations in liquid‐water path and droplet effective radius

2003· article· en· W2064766834 on OpenAlexaff
Petri Räisänen, George A. Isaac, Howard W. Barker, Ismail Gültepe

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid water pathRadiative transferEffective radiusEnvironmental scienceLiquid water contentAlbedo (alchemy)Atmospheric sciencesCloud albedoRADIUSRadiationHorizontal planeMeteorologyAtmospheric radiative transfer codesPhysicsCloud computingGeologyCloud coverOpticsAstrophysicsGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Effects of horizontal variations in liquid‐water path (LWP) and droplet effective radius ( r e ) on solar radiative‐transfer properties of stratiform clouds are addressed. To this end, a broadband Monte Carlo solar radiation code and in situ aircraft observations of cloud properties collected in the Radiation, Aerosol and Cloud Experiment are used. The experiments confirm that the radiative impact of cloud horizontal inhomogeneity is dominated by variations in LWP, which make cloud short‐wave albedo smaller than that for a corresponding plane‐parallel horizontally homogeneous cloud. When horizontal variations in r e are accounted for, however, the impact due to horizontal variations in LWP is usually reduced. When r e and LWP are highly correlated, as is typically the case, the impact on albedo due to LWP variations alone can be reduced easily by 30% when variations in r e are included. Uncertainty factors involved in the calculations are also discussed. Copyright © 2003 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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