The Performance of Commonly Used Surface-Based Instruments for Measuring Visibility, Cloud Ceiling, and Humidity at Cold Lake, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from automated meteorological instruments are used for model validation and aviation applications, but their measurement accuracy has not being adequately tested. In this study, a number of ground-based in-situ, remote-sensing instruments that measure visibility (VIS), cloud base height (CBH), and relative humidity (RH) were tested against data obtained using standard reference instruments and human observations at Cold Lake Airport, Alberta, Canada. The instruments included the Vaisala FS11P and PWD22 (FSPW), a profiling microwave radiometer (MWR), the Jenoptik ceilometer, Rotronic, Vaisala WXT520, AES-Dewcell RH, and temperature sensors. The results showed that the VIS measured using the FSPWs were well correlated with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.84 under precipitation conditions and 0.96 during non-precipitating conditions (NPC), indicating very good agreement. However, the FS11P on average measured higher VIS, particularly under NPC. When the FSPWs were compared against human observation, a significant quantization in the data was observed, but less was noted during daytime compared to nighttime. Both probes measured higher VIS compared to human observation, and the calculated R was close to 0.6 for both probes. When the FSPWs were compared against human observation for VIS < 4 km, the calculated mean difference (MD) for the PWD22 (MD ≈ 0.98 km) was better than the FS11P (MD ≈ 1.37 km); thus, the PWD22 was slightly closer to human observation than the FS11P. No significant difference was found between daytime and nighttime measured VIS as compared to human observation; the instruments measured slightly higher VIS. Two extinction parameterizations as functions of snowfall rate were developed based on the VFPs measurements, and the results were similar. The Jenoptik ceilometer generally measured lower CBH than human observation, but the MWR measured larger CBHs for values <2 km, while CBHs were underestimated for higher CBHs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".