MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116110054 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2011.2154337

Thermodynamic Atmospheric Profiling During the 2010 Winter Olympics Using Ground-Based Microwave Radiometry

2011· article· en· W2116110054 on OpenAlexaffabout
Domenico Cimini, Edwin Campos, Robert S. Ware, Steve Albers, Graziano Giuliani, Jeos Oreamuno, Paul Joe, Steven E. Koch, Stewart G. Cober, E. R. Westwater

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowave radiometerRadiometerMeteorologyRadiosondeEnvironmental scienceCeilometerRemote sensingGeographyAerosol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground-based microwave radiometer profilers in the 20–60-GHz range operate continuously at numerous sites in different climate regions. Recent work suggests that a 1-D variational (1-DVAR) technique, coupling radiometric observations with outputs from a numerical weather prediction model, may outperform traditional retrieval methods for temperature and humidity profiling. The 1-DVAR technique is applied here to observations from a commercially available microwave radiometer deployed at Whistler, British Columbia, which was operated by Environment Canada to support nowcasting and short-term weather forecasting during the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The analysis period included rain, sleet, and snow events ($\sim$235-mm total accumulation and rates up to 18 mm/h). The 1-DVAR method is applied “quasi-operationally,” i.e., as it could have been applied in real time, as no data were culled. The 1-DVAR-achieved accuracy has been evaluated by using simultaneous radiosonde and ceilometer observations as reference. For atmospheric profiling from the surface to 10 km, we obtain retrieval errors within 1.5 K for temperature and 0.5$\hbox{g/m}^{3}$for water vapor density. The retrieval accuracy for column-integrated water vapor is 0.8$ \hbox{kg/m}^{2}$, with small bias$(-0.1\ \hbox{kg/m}^{2})$and excellent correlation (0.96). The retrieval of cloud properties shows a high probability of detection of cloud/no cloud (0.8/0.9, respectively), low false-alarm ratio (0.1), and cloud-base height estimate error within$\sim$0.60 km.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations146
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207