Uncertainty in Measured Raindrop Size Distributions from Four Types of Collocated Instruments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four types (2D-video disdrometer: 2DVD; precipitation occurrence sensor system: POSS; micro-rain radar: MRR; and Joss–Waldvogel disdrometer: JWD) of sixteen instruments were collocated within a square area of 400 m2 from 16 April to 8 May 2008 for intercomparison of drop size distribution (DSD) of rain. This unique dataset was used to study the inherent measurement uncertainty due to the diversity of the measuring principles and sampling sizes of the four types of instruments. The DSD intercomparison shows generally good agreement among them, except that the POSS and MRR had higher concentrations of small raindrops (<1.0 mm) and offered a better chance to observe big raindrops (>5.2 mm). The measurement uncertainty ( σ ) was obtained quantitatively after considering the zero or non-zero measurement error covariance between two instruments of the same type. The results indicate the measurement uncertainties were found to be neither independent nor identical among the same type of instruments. The MRR is relatively accurate (lower σ ) due to large sampling volumes and accurate measurement of the Doppler power spectrum. The JWD is the least accurate due to the small sampling volumes. The σ decreases rapidly with increasing time-averaging window. The 2DVD shows the best accuracy of R in longer averaging time, but this is not true for Z due to the small sampling volume. The MRR outperformed other instruments for Z for entire averaging time due to its measuring principle.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it