MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126698628 · doi:10.3390/rs13040551

Evaluation of Arctic Water Vapor Profile Observations from a Differential Absorption Lidar

2021· article· en· W3126698628 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zen Mariani, Shannon Hicks–Jalali, K. B. Strawbridge, Jack Gwozdecky, Robert W. Crawford, Barbara Casati, François Lemay, Raisa Lehtinen, Pekko Tuominen

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosondeLidarEnvironmental scienceWater vaporArcticDialMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyRemote sensingGeographyGeologyPhysicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continuous measuring of the vertical profile of water vapor in the boundary layer using a commercially available differential absorption lidar (DIAL) has only recently been made possible. Since September 2018, a new pre-production version of the Vaisala DIAL system has operated at the Iqaluit supersite (63.74°N, 68.51°W), commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) as part of the Canadian Arctic Weather Science project. This study presents its evaluation during the extremely dry conditions experienced in the Arctic by comparing it with coincident radiosonde and Raman lidar observations. Comparisons over a one year period were strongly correlated (r > 0.8 at almost all heights) and exhibited an average bias of +0.13 ± 0.01 g/kg (DIAL-sonde) and +0.18 ± 0.02 g/kg (DIAL-Raman). Larger differences exhibiting distinct artifacts were found between 250 and 400 m above ground level (AGL). The DIAL’s observations were also used to conduct a verification case study of operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) models during the World Meteorological Organization’s Year of Polar Prediction. Comparisons to ECCC’s global environmental multiscale model (GEM-2.5 km and GEM-10 km) indicate good agreement with an average bias < 0.16 g/kg for the higher-resolution (GEM-2.5 km) models. All models performed significantly better during the winter than the summer, likely due to the winter’s lower water vapor concentrations and decreased variability. This study provides evidence in favor of using high temporal resolution lidar water vapor profile measurements to complement radiosonde observations and for NWP model verification and process studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207