MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171716256

Ultra-High Resolution Aircraft Icing Forecasting During the ICICLE Field Project

2020· article· en· W3171716256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregory Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyAeronauticsEngineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The FAA‑funded In-Cloud ICing and Large drop Experiment (ICICLE) presented a watershed moment to test modern era high resolution numerical model forecasts of supercooled liquid water. Furthermore, the field campaign was relatively unique in its opportunity to assess the explicit prediction between small droplet in-cloud icing and freezing drizzle and freezing rain. This talk will show case study results from two flights on 17 Feb 2019 that included multiple hours in freezing drizzle conditions in addition to ice pellets, snow grains, and the more commonly measured in-cloud small droplet icing. Numerical model results using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model with 600‑meter grid spacing and the Thompson and Eidhammer (2014) aerosol-aware microphysics scheme are compared against aircraft measurements of aerosol concentration, particle size distributions of water and ice, and on-board radar data as well as surface observations and satellite brightness temperatures. This research is in response to requirements and funding by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the FAA.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207