MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092817443 · doi:10.5194/acp-20-11799-2020

Possible mechanisms of summer cirrus clouds over the Tibetan Plateau

2020· article· en· W3092817443 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Zhang, Qiurun Yu, J. Mao, Dan Chen, Yanyu Wang, Qianshan He, Tiantao Cheng, Chun‐Hong Chen, Dongwei Liu, Yanping Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCirrusPlateau (mathematics)Orographic liftAtmospheric sciencesLidarClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyMeteorologyGeographyRemote sensingPrecipitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geographical distributions of summertime cirrus with different cloud top heights above the Tibetan Plateau are investigated by using the 2012–2016 Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) data. The cirrus clouds with different cloud top heights exhibit an obvious difference in their horizontal distribution over the Tibetan Plateau (TP). The maximum occurrence for cirrus with a cloud top height less than 9 km starts over the western plateau and moves up to the northern regions when cirrus is between 9 and 12 km. Above 12 km, the maximum occurrence of cirrus retreats to the southern fringe of the plateau. Three kinds of formation mechanisms – large-scale orographic uplift, ice particle generation caused by temperature fluctuation, and remnants of overflow from deep-convective anvils – dominate the formation of cirrus at less than 9 km, between 9 and 12 km, and above 12 km, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207