MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104030378 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2000.860472

First results from the Canadian Convair (NRC) 35 GHz cloud-profiling radar during AIRS

2002· article· en· W2104030378 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.E. Jordan, J. W. Strapp, David Hudak, Peter Rodriguez, K. B. Strawbridge, Lyle Lilie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingRadarLidarEnvironmental scienceScatterometerMeteorologyAtmospheric researchDoppler radar3D radarRadar engineering detailsAerospace engineeringRadar imagingGeologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NRC Institute for Aerospace Research and the Meteorological Service of Canada have collaborated for a number of years in making atmospheric measurements using the NRC Convair 580 aircraft. This has involved measurements of physical parameters including atmospheric state, cloud particle microphysics and solar radiation. In recent years an IR lidar system with dual beams has been installed. During 1999, a cloud-profiling radar (CPR), operating at a wavelength of 8.6 mm, was installed to make additional remote measurements. This millimetre-wave radar system provides a unique capability when used in concert with other sensors such as the lidar and A-Band spectrometer. During December 1999 and January/February 2000, the radar was used for the first time in the Alliance Icing Research Study (AIRS). The primary focus of the study was to measure atmospheric conditions leading to aircraft icing, using both in-situ as well as remote measurements from the aircraft and the ground. The purpose of this paper is to describe the radar and lidar and other related aircraft sensors, and to show some preliminary results from the AIRS experiment. The motivation for using a cloud radar on the aircraft was to make measurements of radar reflectivity (and eventually Doppler spectra) at high sensitivity and spatial resolution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.157 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207