Scanning ARM Cloud Radars. Part I: Operational Sampling Strategies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The acquisition of scanning cloud radars by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program and research institutions around the world generates the need for developing operational scan strategies for cloud radars. Here, the first generation of sampling strategies for the scanning ARM cloud radars (SACRs) is presented. These scan strategies are designed to address the scientific objectives of ARM; however, they introduce an initial framework for operational scanning cloud radars. While the weather community uses scan strategies that are based on a sequence of scans at constant elevations, the SACR scan strategies are based on a sequence of scans at constant azimuth. This is attributed to the cloud geometrical properties, which are vastly different from the rain and snow shafts that are the primary targets of precipitation radars; the need to cover the cone of silence; and the scanning limitations of the SACRs. A “cloud surveillance” scan strategy is introduced that is based on a sequence of horizon-to-horizon range–height indicator (RHI) scans that sample the hemispherical sky (HS) every 30° azimuth (HSRHI). The HSRHI scan strategy is complimented with a low-elevation plan position indicator (PPI) scan. The HSRHI and PPI are repeated every 30 min to provide a static view of the cloud conditions around the SACR location. Between the HSRHI and PPI scan strategies, other scan strategies are introduced depending on the cloud conditions. In the future, information about the atmospheric cloud state will be used in a closed-loop process to optimize the selection of the SACR scan strategy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 it