MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252465257 · doi:10.1002/2015gl067618

First observations of triple‐frequency radar Doppler spectra in snowfall: Interpretation and applications

2016· article· en· W2252465257 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Kneifel, Pavlos Kollias, Alessandro Battaglia, Jussi Leinonen, Maximilian Maahn, Frédéric Tridon

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsSnowSpectral lineRadarDoppler effectDoppler radarEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyPhysicsRemote sensingPrecipitationComputational physicsGeologyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The potential of multifrequency Doppler spectra to constrain precipitation microphysics has so far only been exploited for dual‐frequency spectra in rain. In this study, we extend the dual‐frequency concept to triple‐frequency Doppler radar spectra obtained during a snowfall event which included rimed and unrimed snow aggregates. A large selection of spectra obtained from low‐turbulence regions within the cloud reveals distinctly different signatures of the derived dual spectral ratios. Due to the third frequency, a characteristic curve can be derived which is almost independent of the underlying particle size distribution and velocity‐size relation. This approach provides new opportunities for validating existing and future snow scattering models and reveals how the information content of triple‐frequency radar data sets can be further exploited for snowfall studies.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations101
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207