A fog and low visibility climatology for selected stations in the Western Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A detailed examination of low visibility (LV) occurrences and the weather types that cause low visibility, with a focus on fog, was performed for five weather stations in the western Canadian Arctic, in the vicinity of the Amundsen Gulf area of the eastern Beaufort Sea. A series of climatologies were developed that established patterns of LV occurrence as a proportion of all observations and as a function of LV events caused by fog. Frequency climatologies for other weather types were also performed; in particular, for snow, blowing snow, rain, and drizzle. Annual climatologies were used to identify trends in several weather parameters over the 1980-2015 period of study. Monthlies were used to identify typical patterns of occurrence over the course of a year, and hourlies over the course of a day. A dataset of multi-hour fog events was also created; some of these were related to synoptic patterns. Analysis was also broken down by season. Results indicate several things. Monthly climatologies showed considerable diversity across the study area. Three distinct groupings were noted: Tuktoyaktuk and Ulukhaktok with a maximum frequency of LV conditions in February, Aklavik and Inuvik with a maxiumum frequency in October, and Sachs Harbour in August. The February maximum in Tuktoyaktuk and Ulukhaktok was related to cold air temperatures combined with small amounts of moisture from sea ice leads. The Alkavik and Inuvik October maximum was related to moisture advected over land from remaining open water, as well as diurnal snow melt adding moisture to the boundary layer that condenses as the evening cools off. The August maximum in Sachs Harbour is a reflection of proximity to open water and cold air temperatures. Hourly climatologies in the spring/fall season showed most stations have maximum occurrence of LV events caused by fog in the early morning. This is a radiative effect; cooling overnight causes radiation fog that peaks in occurrence just as morning begins. This peak is pushed into the midday in the winter, and is much weaker in the summer, both reflections of the changing pattern of daylight hours.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".