Assessment of a Microphysical Ensemble Used to Investigate the OWLeS IOP4 Lake-Effect Storm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microphysical processes within mixed-phase convective clouds can have cascading impacts on cloud properties and resultant precipitation. This paper investigates the role of microphysics in the lake-effect storm (LES) observed during intensive observing period 4 of the Ontario Winter Lake-effect Systems field campaign. A microphysical ensemble is composed of 24 simulations that differ in the microphysics scheme used (e.g., Weather Research and Forecasting Model microphysics options or a choice of two bulk adaptive habit models) along with changes in the representation of aerosol and potential ice nuclei concentrations, ice nucleation parameterizations, rain and ice fall speeds, spectral indices, ice habit assumptions, and the number of moments used for modeling ice-phase hydrometeors in each adaptive habit model. Each of these changes to microphysics resulted in varied precipitation types at the surface; 15 members forecast a mixture of snow, ice, and graupel, 7 members forecast only snow and ice, and the remaining 2 members forecast a combination of snow, ice, graupel, and rain. Observations from an optical disdrometer positioned to the south of the LES core indicate that 92% of the observed particles were snow and ice, 5% were graupel, and 3% were rain and drizzle. Analysis of observations spanning more than a point location, such as polarimetric radar observations and aircraft measurements of liquid water content, provides insight into cloud composition and processes leading to the differences at the surface. Ensemble spread is controlled by hydrometeor type differences spurred by processes or parameters (e.g., ice fall speed) that affect graupel mass.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".