Detection of particle layers in backscatter profiles: application to Antarctic lidar measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A detection method is proposed and studied to infer the presence of hidden signals in a statistical way. It is applied here to the detection of Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) layers in lidar backscatter profiles measured over the Dumont D'Urville station (Antarctica). PSCs appear as layers with enhanced variance in non stationary, heteroscedastic signal profiles, between two unknown altitudes to be estimated. The method is based on a three step algorithm. The first step is the stationarization of the signal, the second performs the maximum likelihoods estimation of the signal (PSC altitude range and variance inside and outside the PSC layer). The last step uses a Fisher-Snédécor test to decide whether the detection of PSC layer is statistically significant. Performances and robustness of the method are tested on simulated data with given statistical properties. Bias and detection limit are estimated. The method is then applied to lidar backscatter profiles measured in 2008. No PSC are detected during seasons when PSCs are not expected to form. As expected, PSC layers are detected during the austral winter and early spring. The effect of time averaging of the profiles is investigated. The best compromise for detection of PSC layers in lidar backscatter profiles acquired at Dumont D'Urville is a time averaging window of 1 h typically.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".