The Relationship between Clouds Containing Multiple Layers 7.5–30 m Thick and Surface Weather Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have identified finely laminated, or layered, features within Arctic clouds. This study focuses on quasi-horizontal layers that are 7.5 to 30 m thick, within clouds from 0 to 5 km altitude. No pre-selection for any particular cloud types was made prior to the identification of laminations. We capitalize on the 4-year measurement record available from Eureka, Nunavut (79.6∘ N, 85.6∘ W), using the Canadian Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (CANDAC) Rayleigh–Mie–Raman Lidar (CRL; 1 min, 7.5 m resolution). Laminated features are identified on 18% of all days, from 2016–2019. Their presence is conclusively excluded on 12% of days. March, April, and May have a higher measurement cadence and show laminations on 41% of days. Individual months show laminations on up to 50% of days. Our results suggest that laminations are not rare phenomena at Eureka. To determine laminations’ likely contribution to Arctic weather and climate, local weather reports were obtained from the nearby Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) weather station. Days with laminated clouds are strongly correlated with precipitating snow (r = 0.63), while days with non-laminated clouds (r = −0.40) and clear sky days (r = −0.43) are moderately anti-correlated with snow 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".