MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105893968 · doi:10.1002/2014rg000468

Representation of microphysical processes in cloud‐resolving models: Spectral (bin) microphysics versus bulk parameterization

2015· article· en· W2105893968 on OpenAlexaff
А. Хаин, K.D. Beheng, Andrew J. Heymsfield, Alexei Korolev, S. O. Krichak, Zev Levin, Mark Pinsky, Vaughan T. J. Phillips, Thara Prabhakaran, A. Teller, Susan C. van den Heever, Jun‐Ichi Yano

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Geophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersBiological and Environmental ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationHebrew University of JerusalemBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBinMesoscale meteorologyEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyCloud physicsCloud computingAtmospheric modelsAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsComputer scienceAtmosphere (unit)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most atmospheric motions of different spatial scales and precipitation are closely related to phase transitions in clouds. The continuously increasing resolution of large‐scale and mesoscale atmospheric models makes it feasible to treat the evolution of individual clouds. The explicit treatment of clouds requires the simulation of cloud microphysics. Two main approaches describing cloud microphysical properties and processes have been developed in the past four and a half decades: bulk microphysics parameterization and spectral (bin) microphysics (SBM). The development and utilization of both represent an important step forward in cloud modeling. This study presents a detailed survey of the physical basis and the applications of both bulk microphysics parameterization and SBM. The results obtained from simulations of a wide range of atmospheric phenomena, from tropical cyclones through Arctic clouds using these two approaches are compared. Advantages and disadvantages, as well as lines of future development for these methods are discussed.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations476
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of GeophysicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207