MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729648178 · doi:10.1002/qj.3105

Exploring the convective grey zone with regional simulations of a cold air outbreak

2017· article· en· W2729648178 on OpenAlexaff
Paul R. Field, Radmila Brožková, Ming Chen, Jimy Dudhia, Christine Lac, Tabito Hara, Rachel Honnert, Joe Olson, A. Pier Siebesma, Stephan de Roode, Lorenzo Tomassini, Adrian Hill, Ron McTaggart‐Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)ConvectionMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceRadiative transferClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold air outbreaks can bring snow to populated areas and can affect aviation safety. Shortcomings in the representation of these phenomena in global and regional models are thought to be associated with large systematic cloud‐related radiative flux errors across many models. In this study, nine regional models have been used to simulate a cold air outbreak case at a range of grid spacings (1–16 km) with convection represented explicitly or by a parametrization. Overall, there is more spread between model results for the simulations in which convection is parametrized when compared to simulations in which convection is represented explicitly. The quality of the simulations of both the stratocumulus and the convective regions of the domain are assessed with observational comparisons 24 h into the simulation. The stratocumulus region is not well reproduced by the models, which tend to predict open cell convection with increasing resolution rather than stratocumulus. For the convective region the model spread reduces with increased resolution and there is some improvement in comparison to observations. Comparing models that have the same physical parametrizations or dynamical core suggest that both are important for accurately reproducing this case.

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)0.000
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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations82
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207