Undercatch Adjustments for Tipping-Bucket Gauge Measurements of Solid Precipitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Heated tipping-bucket (TB) gauges are used broadly in national weather monitoring networks, but their performance for the measurement of solid precipitation has not been well characterized. Manufacturer-provided TB gauges were evaluated at five test sites during the World Meteorological Organization Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment (WMO-SPICE), with most gauge types tested at more than one site. The test results were used to develop and evaluate adjustments for the undercatch of solid precipitation by heated TB gauges. New methods were also developed to address challenges specific to measurements from heated TB gauges. Tipping-bucket transfer functions were created specifically to minimize the sum of errors over the course of the adjusted multiseasonal accumulation. This was based on the hypothesis that the best transfer function produces the most accurate long-term precipitation records, rather than accurate catch efficiency measurements or accurate daily or hourly precipitation measurements. Using this new approach, an adjustment function derived from multiple gauges was developed that performed better than traditional gauge-specific and multigauge catch efficiency derived adjustments. Because this new multigauge adjustment was developed using six different types of gauges tested at five different sites, it may be applicable to solid precipitation measurements from unshielded heated TB gauges that were not evaluated in WMO-SPICE. In addition, this new method of optimizing transfer functions may be useful for other types of precipitation gauges, as it has many practical advantages over the traditional catch efficiency methods used to derive undercatch adjustments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".