MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023741714 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2020.2984458

Ceilometer-Based Rain-Rate Estimation: A Case-Study Comparison With S-Band Radar and Disdrometer Retrievals in the Context of VORTEX-SE

2020· article· en· W3023741714 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francesc Rocadenbosch, Rubén Barragán, Stephen J. Frasier, Joseph Waldinger, David D. Turner, Robin L. Tanamachi, Daniel T. Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueEuropean CommissionHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeUniversity of SaskatchewanAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstPurdue University
KeywordsCeilometerDisdrometerEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingContext (archaeology)MeteorologyRadarLidarGeologyComputer scienceGeographyPrecipitationRain gauge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attenuated backscatter measurements from a Vaisala CL31 ceilometer and a modified form of the well-known slope method are used to derive the ceilometer extinction profiles during rain events, restricted to rainfall rates (RRs) below approximately 10 mm/h. RR estimates from collocated S-band radar and portable disdrometer are used to derive the RR-to-extinction correlation models for the ceilometer-radar and ceilometer-disdrometer combinations. Data were collected during an intensive observation period of the Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment Southeast (VORTEX-SE) conducted in northern Alabama. These models are used to estimate the RR from the ceilometer observations in similar situations that do not have collocated radar or the disdrometer. Such correlation models are, however, limited by the different temporal and spatial resolutions of the measured variables, measurement capabilities of the instruments, and the inherent assumption of a homogeneous atmosphere. An empirical method based on extinction and RR uncertainty scoring and covariance fitting are proposed to solve, in part, these limitations.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207