Contrasting Polarimetric Observations of Stratiform Riming and Nonriming Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the how riming in stratiform precipitation impacts polarimetric signatures. Using a vertically pointing Doppler X-band radar, cases can be separated into one of three groups: unrimed to lightly rimed, riming with no bimodal spectra and fall speeds greater than 2.0 m s−1, and riming with bimodal velocity spectra. By averaging polarimetric variables over a 20° by 10-km box near the X-band radar, different signatures were documented for each of the three groups. These polarimetric signatures were then compared with a simplified T-matrix scattering model. Differential reflectivity ZDR was the one polarimetric variable to consistently vary across all three groups. Unrimed to lightly rimed cases had profiles of polarimetric signatures similar to numerous previous studies. Riming cases without detectable bimodal spectra had ZDR values on the order of 0.2 dB lower than unrimed to lightly rimed cases, while cases with bimodal spectra had ZDR values about 0.2–0.4 dB higher than unrimed to lightly rimed cases. Both signatures were reproduced using populations of aggregates, dendrites, and needles in the T-matrix scattering model. While these signatures show the potential to identify riming, they are not enough larger than measurement biases and case-to-case variability to be confidently used without confirmation from other data sources, such as a vertically pointing radar.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".