VHF tropospheric scatterer anisotropy at Resolute Bay and its implications for tropospheric radar‐derived wind accuracies
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
Knowledge about the anisotropy of VHF radio wave scatterers in the atmosphere is important when VHF wind profiler radars are used to measure atmospheric winds by Doppler beam‐swinging methods, since appropriate correction factors must be employed. In this study, the anisotropy of the scatterers is determined using two different methods, over the course of a full year, for a VHF radar at Resolute Bay in northern Canada (75°N). The first method utilizes direct comparisons of the radar‐derived winds with those of radiosondes launched from close to the site, while the second uses comparisons of powers received on vertical and off‐vertical beams. The study is unique in that a full year of radiosonde data were available from balloons which were launched from a site only 4 km from the radar. The two methods for estimating the anisotropy at first appear to give slightly different conclusions, but by properly considering the errors associated with both radar and radiosonde measurements it is possible not only to reconcile the two sets of measurements but also to give reasonable estimates of the errors associated with both the sonde and radar winds. An important result which arises is that the radar data have very similar accuracies to the radiosonde data. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that in the past, radar wind measurements may have been overcorrected, because the errors in the sonde measurements may not have been properly considered in determining the correct conversions. Seasonal variations in the aspect sensitivity are found but are not large.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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