Improvement of Solid Precipitation Measurements Using a Hotplate Precipitation Gauge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate snowfall measurement is challenging because it depends on the precipitation gauge used, meteorological conditions, and the precipitation microphysics. Upstream of weighing gauges, the flow field is disturbed by the gauge and any shielding used usually creates an updraft, which deflects solid precipitation from falling in the gauge, resulting in significant undercatch. Wind shields are often used with weighing gauges to reduce this updraft, and transfer functions are required to adjust the snowfall measurements to consider gauge undercatch. Using these functions reduces the bias in precipitation measurement but not the root-mean-square error (RMSE). In this study, the accuracy of the Hotplate precipitation gauge was compared to standard unshielded and shielded weighing gauges collected during the WMO Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment program. The analysis performed in this study shows that the Hotplate precipitation gauge bias after wind correction is near zero and similar to wind corrected weighing gauges. The RMSE of the Hotplate precipitation gauge measurements is lower than weighing gauges (with or without an Alter shield) for wind speeds up to 5 m s−1, the wind speed limit at which sufficient data were available. This study shows that the Hotplate precipitation gauge measurement has a low bias and RMSE due to its aerodynamic shape, making its performance mostly independent of the type of solid precipitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".