MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996332817 · doi:10.1029/2019ms001862

Error Analysis for an Algorithm That Reduces Radiative Transfer Calculations in High‐Resolution Atmospheric Models

2019· article· en· W2996332817 on OpenAlexaff
Howard W. Barker, Zhipeng Qu, Jason N. S. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiative transferLongwaveRadiative fluxSeries (stratigraphy)AlgorithmAtmospheric radiative transfer codesIrradianceSolar irradianceMathematicsMeteorologyEnvironmental sciencePhysicsGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study assesses characteristics of spatial and temporal errors for net (shortwave + longwave) surface irradiances and atmospheric heating rates predicted by the Partitioned‐Gauss‐Legendre Quadrature (PGLQ) algorithm, whose aim is to economize computation of radiative transfer (RT) in high‐resolution cloud system‐resolving models (CSRMs). Most results reported here are for PGLQ having made 200 times fewer calls to the RT models than the Independent Column Approximation, which applies the RT models to each column in CSRM domains. Due to the nature of GLQ, PGLQ yields almost unbiased domain averages. This is shown for data pertaining to two convective cloud systems produced by a CSRM. Relative to the Independent Column Approximation, PGLQ works with much reduced amounts of information, and so it has the potential to produce rare, but sizable, localized errors. Two methods are employed to assess the “randomness” of spatial and temporal series of PGLQ flux and heating rate errors; one of which is developed here. Regarding spatial transects of net surface irradiance errors ΔFNET, ~30–60% of them are considered by both assessment techniques, simultaneously, to be indistinguishable, at the 95% confidence level, from fully uncorrelated sequences. Correspondingly, for time series of ΔFNET (at 8‐s time step), ~15–20% of 128‐step series, and ~10–70% of 30‐step series are considered by both methods, simultaneously, to be random. For time series of errors for net radiative heating rates, ~40% of cloudless series get classed, by both tests simultaneously, as random, compared to ~20% of those that contain some cloud.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth SystemsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207