Monitoring the impacts of weather radar data quality control for quantitative application at the continental scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As part of a suite of quality control methods applied to Canadian and American weather radar data before their assimilation into a numerical weather prediction model, the combination of thresholded depolarization ratio and a speckle filter was applied to American data with the purpose of identifying and removing non‐precipitation echoes. This polarimetric quality control replaces a set of image‐analysis‐based methods used in a previous study and based on reflectivity information only. The old and new quality‐controlled results were objectively assessed using meteorological aerodrome report (METAR)‐based precipitation occurrence observations and a set of five common contingency table skill scores with all available Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) Level II data from the contiguous United States for August 2016. The new quality control yields consistently improved skill scores, indicating higher quality radar data for downstream application. The process whereby the radar data are quality controlled and assessed comprises a framework with the ability to monitor the impacts of quality control to radar data quality over time. In turn, this allows for the introduction of changes to data acquisition and processing with the ability to monitor the impacts on data quality: a scientific evidence‐based quality assurance process as part of change management.
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 | 0.023 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".