Information content of data measured with a multiple-field-of-view lidar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lidars with multiple fields of view (MFOVs) are promising tools for gaining information on cloud particle size. We perform a study of the information content of MFOV lidar data with the use of eigenvalue analysis. The approach we have developed permits an understanding of the main features of MFOV lidars and provides a way to relate the accuracy of particle size estimation with the measurement uncertainty and the scattering geometry such as the cloud-base height and the lidar sounding depth. Second-order scattering computations are performed for an extended range of particle sizes and for a wide range of lidar fields of view (FOVs). The results obtained allow us to specify the areas of possible applications of these lidars in cloud studies. Comparison of results obtained with polarized and cross-polarized scattered components demonstrate that the cross-polarized signal should provide a more stable retrieval and is preferable when double scattering is highly dominant. Our analysis allows for the estimation of the optimal number of FOVs in the system and their angular distribution, so this work can be a useful tool for practical MFOV lidar design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".