MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W29453418 · doi:10.1038/s41431-018-0114-6

Spectral Retrieval of Latent Heating Profiles from TRMM PR Data: Comparison of Look-Up Tables

2003· article· en· W29453418 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shoichi Shige, Yukari N. Takayabu, Wei‐Kuo Tao, Daniel E. Johnson, Chung‐Lin Shie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTable (database)PrecipitationEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyConvectionAtmosphere (unit)Latent heatClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyGeographyDatabaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary goal of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) is to use the information about distributions of precipitation to determine the four dimensional (i.e., temporal and spatial) patterns of latent heating over the whole tropical region. The Spectral Latent Heating (SLH) algorithm has been developed to estimate latent heating profiles for the TRMM Precipitation Radar (PR) with a cloud- resolving model (CRM). The method uses CRM- generated heating profile look-up tables for the three rain types; convective, shallow stratiform, and anvil rain (deep stratiform with a melting level). For convective and shallow stratiform regions, the look-up table refers to the precipitation top height (PTH). For anvil region, on the other hand, the look- up table refers to the precipitation rate at the melting level instead of PTH. For global applications, it is necessary to examine the universality of the look-up table. In this paper, we compare the look-up tables produced from the numerical simulations of cloud ensembles forced with the Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere (TOGA) Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Response Experiment (COARE) data and the GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE) data. There are some notable differences between the TOGA-COARE table and the GATE table, especially for the convective heating. First, there is larger number of deepest convective profiles in the TOGA-COARE table than in the GATE table, mainly due to the differences in SST. Second, shallow convective heating is stronger in the TOGA COARE table than in the GATE table. This might be attributable to the difference in the strength of the low-level inversions. Third, altitudes of convective heating maxima are larger in the TOGA COARE table than in the GATE table. Levels of convective heating maxima are located just below the melting level, because warm-rain processes are prevalent in tropical oceanic convective systems. Differences in levels of convective heating maxima probably reflect differences in melting layer heights. We are now extending our study to simulations of other field experiments (e.g. SCSMEX and ARM) in order to examine the universality of the look-up table. The impact of look-up tables on the retrieved latent heating profiles will also be assessed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207