Quantitative Precipitation Estimation from a C-Band Dual-Polarized Radar for the 8 July 2013 Flood in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A heavy rainfall event over a 2-h period on 8 July 2013 caused significant flash flooding in the city of Toronto and produced 126 mm of rain accumulation at a gauge located near the Toronto Pearson International Airport. This paper evaluates the quantitative precipitation estimates from the nearby King City C-band dual-polarized radar (WKR). Horizontal reflectivity Z and differential reflectivity ZDR were corrected for attenuation using a modified ZPHI rain profiling algorithm, and rain rates R were calculated from R(Z) and R(Z, ZDR) algorithms. Specific differential phase KDP was used to compute rain rates from three R(KDP) algorithms, one modified to use positive and negative KDP, and an R(KDP, ZDR) algorithm. Additionally, specific attenuation at horizontal polarization A was used to calculate rates from the R(A) algorithm. High-temporal-resolution rain gauge data at 44 locations measured the surface rainfall every 5 min and produced total rainfall accumulations over the affected area. The nearby NEXRAD S-band dual-polarized radar at Buffalo, New York, provided rain-rate and storm accumulation estimates from R(Z) and S-band dual-polarimetric algorithm. These two datasets were used as references to evaluate the C-band estimates. Significant radome attenuation at WKR overshadowed the attenuation correction techniques and resulted in poor rainfall estimates from the R(Z) and R(Z, ZDR) algorithms. Rainfall estimation from the Brandes et al. R(KDP) and R(A) algorithms were superior to the other methods, and the derived storm total accumulation gave biases of 2.1 and −6.1 mm, respectively, with correlations of 0.94. The C-band estimates from the Brandes et al. R(KDP) and R(A) algorithms were comparable to the NEXRAD S-band estimates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".