MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096474702 · doi:10.1002/qj.2597

Application of a Monte Carlo solar radiative transfer modelin the McICA framework

2015· article· en· W2096474702 on OpenAlexaff
Howard W. Barker, Jason N. S. Cole, Jiangnan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersFreie Universität BerlinEuropean Space AgencyPennsylvania State UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsRadiative transferMonte Carlo methodRadiative fluxPhysicsZenithComputational physicsAtmospheric radiative transfer codesPhotonFlux (metallurgy)MeteorologyEnvironmental scienceStatistical physicsOpticsMaterials scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large‐scale atmospheric models (LSAMs) that utilize the Monte Carlo Independent Column Approximation (McICA) have, thus far, paired McICA only with two‐stream approximations (TSAs) of the radiative transfer equation. In this study, the short‐wave TSA is exchanged for a Monte Carlo (MC) photon transport model. More than 44 000 domains of cloud properties retrieved from A‐Train satellite data, each measuring 256 km in length, were used to assess the noise characteristics of TSA‐ and MC‐based McICA models. It appears as though application of an MC algorithm in McICA will be both beneficial and tractable for LSAMs. This is because known levels of acceptable radiative noise produced by TSA‐based McICAs can be achieved with small numbers of MC photons. The greatest concern with the TSA McICA has been noise associated with heating rates for cloudy layers. But with as few as 500–1000 photons per simulation, the MC McICA reduces cloudy layer heating rate errors by typically ∼20%. Furthermore, since MC models can utilize detailed descriptions of cloud particle scattering phase functions and TSAs use only corresponding asymmetry parameters, TSA‐based McICAs, on average, overestimate all‐sky top‐of‐atmosphere reflected flux density at small solar zenith angles θ0 by ∼3 W m−2 and underestimate it at large θ0 by ∼1 W m−2; vice versa for surface net flux density. Systematic biases such as these are important when attempting to balance an LSAM's energy budgets and when making detailed estimates of radiative forcings due to anthropogenic activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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