MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096729982 · doi:10.1029/2004gl021201

Anatomy of cirrus clouds: Results from the Emerald airborne campaigns

2004· article· en· W2096729982 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Whiteway, C. Cook, M. W. Gallagher, T. W. Choularton, J. E. Harries, Paul Connolly, R. Busen, Keith Bower, Michael Flynn, Peter T. May, Robin Aspey, Jörg Hacker

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCirrusIce crystalsOutflowThunderstormGeologyCloud physicsLidarMiddle latitudesAtmospheric sciencesLatitudeMeteorologyRemote sensingPhysicsOceanographyCloud computingGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Emerald airborne measurement campaigns have provided a view of the anatomy of cirrus clouds in both the tropics and mid‐latitudes. These experiments have involved two aircraft that combine remote sensing and in‐situ measurements. Results are presented here from two separate flights: one in frontal cirrus above Adelaide, Australia, the other in the cirrus outflow from convection above Darwin. Recorded images of ice crystals are shown in relation to the cloud structure measured simultaneously by an airborne lidar. In mid‐latitude frontal cirrus, columnar and irregular ice crystals were observed throughout the cloud while rosettes were found only at the top. The cirrus outflow from a tropical thunderstorm extended for hundreds of kilometres between the heights of 12.2 and 15.8 km. This was composed mainly of hexagonal plates, columns, and large crystal aggregates that originated from within the main core region of the convection. A small number of bullet rosettes were found at the top of the outflow cirrus and this is interpreted as an indication of in‐situ crystal formation. It was found that the largest aggregates fell to the lower regions of the outflow cirrus cloud while the single crystals and small aggregates remained at the top.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

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

Citations113
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207