MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110725524 · doi:10.1029/2020gl091236

Observational Constraints on Warm Cloud Microphysical Processes Using Machine Learning and Optimization Techniques

2020· article· en· W3110725524 on OpenAlexaff
J. Christine Chiu, C. Kevin Yang, Peter Jan van Leeuwen, Graham Feingold, Robert Wood, Yann Blanchard, Fan Mei, Jian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDrizzleAccretion (finance)Environmental scienceCloud computingLiquid water contentMeteorologyCloud physicsRepresentation (politics)Atmospheric sciencesComputer scienceAstrophysicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce new parameterizations for autoconversion and accretion rates that greatly improve representation of the growth processes of warm rain. The new parameterizations capitalize on machine-learning and optimization techniques and are constrained by in situ cloud probe measurements from the recent Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program field campaign at Azores. The uncertainty in the new estimates of autoconversion and accretion rates is about 15% and 5%, respectively, outperforming existing parameterizations. Our results confirm that cloud and drizzle water content are the most important factors for determining accretion rates. However, for autoconversion, in addition to cloud water content and droplet number concentration, we discovered a key role of drizzle number concentration that is missing in current parameterizations. The robust relation between autoconversion rate and drizzle number concentration is surprising but real, and furthermore supported by theory. Thus, drizzle number concentration should be considered in parameterizations for improved representation of the autoconversion process.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207