Evaluation of the WMO-SPICE transfer functions for adjustingthe wind bias in solid precipitation measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Solid Precipitation Inter-Comparison Experiment (SPICE) involved extensive field intercomparisons of automated instruments for measuring snow during the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 winter seasons. A key outcome of SPICE was the development of transfer functions for the wind bias adjustment of solid precipitation measurements using various precipitation gauge and windshield configurations. Due to the short intercomparison period, the dataset was not sufficiently large to develop and evaluate transfer functions using independent precipitation measurements. The present analysis uses data collected at eight SPICE sites over the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 winter periods, comparing 30-minute adjusted and unadjusted measurements from Geonor T-200B3 and OTT Pluvio2 precipitation gauges in different shield configurations to the WMO Double Fence Automated Reference (DFAR) for the verification of the transfer function. Performance is assessed in terms of relative total catch (RTC), root mean square error (RMSE), and Pearson correlation (r), and Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) for all precipitation types, and for snow only. The evaluation shows that the performance varies substantially by site. Adjusted RTC varies from 54 % to 123 %, RMSE from 0.07 mm to 0.38 mm, and r from 0.28 to 0.94 and NSE from −1.88 to 0.89, depending on precipitation phase, site, and gauge configuration. Generally, windier sites such as Haukeliseter (Norway) and Bratt's Lake (Canada) exhibit a net under-adjustment (17 % to 46 %), while the less windy sites such as Sodankylä (Finland) and Caribou Creek (Canada) exhibit a net over-adjustment (2 % to 23 %). Although the application of transfer functions is necessary to mitigate wind bias in solid precipitation measurements, especially at windy sites and for unshielded gauges, the inconsistency in the performance metrics among sites suggests that the functions be applied with caution.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".