MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153373601 · doi:10.1175/jas-d-12-0165.1

New Hailstone Physics. Part II: Interaction of the Variables

2013· article· en· W2153373601 on OpenAlexaff
Roland List

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingLiquid water contentMaterials sciencePhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The reduction of parameter dimensions in Part I is complemented by the compaction of parameter space in Part II. The range of diameters is 0.5 ≤ D ≤ 8 cm, and the assumed liquid water content varies within 1 ≤ Wf ≤ 3 for dry growth and Wf ≤ 6 g m−3 for shedding. Entirely new data throw new light onto HMT and growth. Results are as follows: (i) dry growth is unimportant, since most hailstones grow spongy; (ii) radial growth is slow for dry and fast for spongy growth because less latent heat of freezing needs to be discarded if a smaller portion of the accreted water is frozen: this growth with shedding is particularly effective if the product Y of the net collection efficiency and ice mass fraction of the deposit is 0.2 ≤ Y ≤ 0.6; (iii) the lowest possible surface temperature tS for dry growth is −32.3°C. For water-skin-covered, spongy particles tS > −5°C, and tS > −0.55°C for shedding from wet surfaces without water skins; and (iv) the interplay between water-skin thickness and surface temperature allows interconnection of all variables. However, new icing experiments are necessary to prove the proposed sphere growth by special gyration, to quantify the components of Y, and to address water-skin properties and growth. Radically redesigned dynamic cloud models need to incorporate hail packaging and rain spectra evolution in clouds. The latter will connect hailstone shedding with a warm rain process that is parallel to and interacts with hail formation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207