MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555752492 · doi:10.1002/2016jd025090

The performance of the EarthCARE Cloud Profiling Radar in marine stratiform clouds

2016· article· en· W2555752492 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Burns, Pavlos Kollias, Aleksandra Tatarevic, Alessandro Battaglia, Simone Tanelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceRadarDoppler effectDrizzleClutterDoppler radarCloud computingMeteorologyGeologyComputer scienceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marine stratiform clouds are a challenging target for spaceborne radars due to their proximity to Earth's surface, limited vertical extent, and low radar reflectivity. The joint European‐Japanese Earth Clouds, Aerosol and Radiation Explorer (EarthCARE) mission is scheduled for launch in 2019 and features the first atmospheric Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) with Doppler capability in space. Here the performance of the CPR in (i) detecting these clouds and their boundaries and (ii) measuring the Doppler velocities of drizzle particles is evaluated. Extensive observations from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Mobile Facility in marine stratus regimes are used as input to an EarthCARE CPR simulator and to compare the resulting reflectivity factors, Doppler velocities, and cloud detections. Cloud detection of the CPR is 70–80% that of the ground‐based radars, depending upon integration length and feature mask configuration. For clouds entirely contained within the surface clutter, detection is limited but is predicted to be an order of magnitude greater for the EarthCARE CPR than for CloudSat due to the improved range sampling rate of the former. The EarthCARE‐CPR range resolution is found to introduce cloud top height and reflectivity biases of +100 m (equal to the range sampling rate) and +1.3 dB; by applying a constrained linear inversion to the range resolution, these are reduced to 30 m and 0.1 dB, respectively. The analysis indicates that a velocity uncertainty of 0.5 ms −1 is achievable through either a 5 km along‐track integration or a combination of matched spatial filters and 1 km along‐track integration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

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

Citations56
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207