Analysis of single-Alter-shielded and unshielded measurements of mixed and solid precipitation from WMO-SPICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Although precipitation has been measured for many centuries, precipitation measurements are still beset with significant inaccuracies. Solid precipitation is particularly difficult to measure accurately, and wintertime precipitation measurement biases between different observing networks or different regions can exceed 100 %. Using precipitation gauge results from the World Meteorological Organization Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment (WMO-SPICE), errors in precipitation measurement caused by gauge uncertainty, spatial variability in precipitation, hydrometeor type, crystal habit, and wind were quantified. The methods used to calculate gauge catch efficiency and correct known biases are described. Adjustments, in the form of transfer functions that describe catch efficiency as a function of air temperature and wind speed, were derived using measurements from eight separate WMO-SPICE sites for both unshielded and single-Alter-shielded precipitation-weighing gauges. For the unshielded gauges, the average undercatch for all eight sites was 0.50 mm h−1 (34 %), and for the single-Alter-shielded gauges it was 0.35 mm h−1 (24 %). After adjustment, the mean bias for both the unshielded and single-Alter measurements was within 0.03 mm h−1 (2 %) of zero. The use of multiple sites to derive such adjustments makes these results unique and more broadly applicable to other sites with various climatic conditions. In addition, errors associated with the use of a single transfer function to correct gauge undercatch at multiple sites were estimated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".