MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122286658 · doi:10.1256/qj.03.99

Stochastic generation of subgrid‐scale cloudy columns for large‐scale models

2004· article· en· W2122286658 on OpenAlexafffund
Petri Räisänen, Howard W. Barker, Marat Khairoutdinov, Jiangnan Li, David A. Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic ServiceDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsRadiative transferCloud fractionCloud computingLiquid water contentMeteorologyColumn (typography)Scale (ratio)Cloud topEnvironmental scienceGenerator (circuit theory)Monte Carlo methodStatistical physicsRemote sensingPhysicsMathematicsCloud coverGeometryComputer scienceStatisticsGeologyOpticsPower (physics)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To use the Monte Carlo Independent Column Approximation method for computing domain‐average radiative fluxes in large‐scale atmospheric models (LSAMs), a method is needed for generating cloudy subcolumns within LSAM columns. Here, a stochastic cloud generator is introduced to produce the subcolumns. The generator creates a cloud field on a column‐by‐column basis using information about layer cloud fraction, vertical overlap of cloud fraction and cloud condensate for adjacent layers, and density functions describing horizontal variations in cloud water content. The performance of the generator is assessed using a single day's worth of data from an LSAM simulation that employed a low‐resolution two‐dimensional cloud‐resolving model (CRM) within each LSAM column (a total of ∼59 000 cloudy domains). Statistical characteristics of generated cloud fields are compared against original CRM data, and radiative‐transfer biases associated with the generator are evaluated. When the generator is initialized to the greatest extent possible with information obtained from the CRM fields, overall biases are small. For example, global‐mean total cloud fraction exhibits a bias of −0.004, as compared with −0.024 for maximum‐random overlap (MRO) and 0.047 for random overlap. Biases in radiative fluxes and heating rates are in general ¼ to ½ those for MRO with horizontally homogeneous clouds. Copyright © 2004 Royal Meteorological Society

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations180
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207