MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075162893 · doi:10.1256/qj.01.204

Microphysical characterization of mixed‐phase clouds

2003· article· en· W2075162893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexei Korolev, George A. Isaac, Stewart G. Cober, J. W. Strapp, John Hallett

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsLiquid water contentEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesLiquid waterVolume (thermodynamics)Mixed phaseIce nucleusMeteorologyPhase (matter)Cloud computingGeographyGeologyChemistryPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A detailed study of mixed‐phase clouds associated with frontal systems obtained from a large dataset collected by the Convair 580 aircraft of the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada is presented. The total length of analysed in‐cloud legs having total‐water content (TWC) >0.01g m−3 was about 44×103km. The ice–water fraction (µ3=ice−water content/TWC) had a minimum in the range 0.1<µ3<0.9, and two maxima for liquid clouds (µ3<0.1) and ice clouds (µ3>0.9). The concentration of particles in glaciated clouds was found to be nearly constant at 2 – 5 cm −3 for temperatures −35°C<T<0°C. The concentration of droplets in liquid clouds decreased with decreasing temperature. The mean volume diameter of particles in ice clouds varied between 20 μm and 35 μm, and in liquid clouds between 10 μm and 12 μm. Both ice‐ and liquid‐water content decreased with decreasing temperature. The results of this study may be used for validation of remote‐sensing retrievals, and for weather‐ and climate‐models. Copyright © 2007 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations369
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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