Improvement of Snow Gauge Collection Efficiency through a Knowledge of Solid Precipitation Fall Speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The collection efficiency of a typical precipitation gauge-shield configuration decreases with increasing wind speed, with a high scatter for a given wind speed. The high scatter in the collection efficiency for a given wind speed arises in part from the variability in the characteristics of falling snow and atmospheric turbulence. This study uses weighing gauge data collected at the Marshall Field Site near Boulder, Colorado, during the WMO Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment (SPICE). Particle diameter and fall speed data from a laser disdrometer were used to show that the scatter in the collection efficiency can be reduced by considering the fall speed of solid precipitation particles. The collection efficiency was divided into two classes depending on the measured mean-event particle fall speed during precipitation events. Slower-falling particles were associated with a lower collection efficiency. A new transfer function (i.e., the relationship between collection efficiency and other meteorological variables, such as wind speed or air temperature) that includes the fall speed of the hydrometeors was developed. The root-mean-square error of the adjusted precipitation with the new transfer function with respect to a weighing gauge placed in a double fence intercomparison reference was lower than using previously developed transfer functions that only consider wind speed and air temperature. This shows that the measured fall speed of solid precipitation with a laser disdrometer accounts for a large amount of the observed scatter in weighing gauge collection efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".