MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045706240 · doi:10.1364/ao.393059

Physical model of snow precipitation interaction with a 3D lidar scanner

2020· article· en· W3045706240 on OpenAlexaff
G. Roy, Xiaoying Cao, Robert Bernier, Grégoire Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowflakeLidarSnowVisibilityRemote sensingOpticsProbability density functionRandomnessEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow precipitation interaction with a generic 3D lidar is modeled. The randomness and the intensity of the signal as a function of the visibility and snowflake size and density distribution are reproduced. To do so, a representative snow density distribution is modeled as a function of visibility. Taking into account the laser beam and pulse characteristics, the probability to have one or many snowflakes of a given size in the lidar sampling cell is calculated. Knowing the number and the size of the snowflakes, the magnitude of the lidar signal is calculated. Finally, a filtering algorithm based on the relative intensity of the snowflakes is discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207