Sources of Errors in Rainfall Measurements by Polarimetric Radar: Variability of Drop Size Distributions, Observational Noise, and Variation of Relationships between R and Polarimetric Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using a set of long-term disdrometric data and of actual radar measurements from the McGill S-band operational polarimetric radar, several sources of errors in rain measurement with polarimetric radar are explored in order to investigate their relative importance and the feasibility of a polarimetric technique for estimating R in the context of the McGill S-band operational radar that performs a full volume scan of 24 plan position indicators (PPIs) every 5 min. The sources of errors considered are the variability of drop size distributions (DSDs), observational noise, and systematic variation of the relationships between R and polarimetric parameters at different climate regimes. Additional polarimetric parameters dramatically reduce the effect of the DSD variability on rain estimates by radar. The effectiveness of various multiparameter relationships is investigated. The relationships from the literature that are derived from the DSD model and measured DSDs at a different climate regime differ from those derived from the disdrometric dataset herein. An application of these relationships to the Montreal dataset results in a bias (about 10%–20%) and the significant random error resulting from the DSD variability. These errors should be eliminated by using a relationship suitable for the local climate. Assuming a measurement noise as expected from a slow scanning polarimetric radar [∼1 rotation per minute (rpm)] and a 10-min smoothing, the R − (Zh, ZDR) relationship outperforms the conventional R − Zh because of the combined effect of the DSD variability and measurement errors. In addition, the marginal measurement noise that is required to have the same accuracy of R − Zh and R − (Zh, ZDR) algorithms is obtained as a function of temporal smoothing. The quantified measurement noise of the McGill S-band fast scanning operational radar (∼6 rpm) is significantly larger than that of a slow scanning radar, implying that a temporal averaging of ZDR of 1 h is needed to achieve some gain with R − (Zh, ZDR).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".