Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The changing Arctic climate is creating increased economic, transportation, and recreational activities requiring reliable and relevant weather information. However, the Canadian Arctic is sparsely observed, and processes governing weather systems in the Arctic are not well understood. There is a recognized lack of meteorological data to characterize the Arctic atmosphere for operational forecasting and to support process studies, satellite calibration/validation, search and rescue operations (which are increasing in the region), high-impact weather (HIW) detection and prediction, and numerical weather prediction (NWP) model verification and evaluation. To address this need, Environment and Climate Change Canada commissioned two supersites, one in Iqaluit (63.74∘ N, 68.51∘ W) in September 2015 and the other in Whitehorse (60.71∘ N, 135.07∘ W) in November 2017 as part of the Canadian Arctic Weather Science (CAWS) project. The primary goals of CAWS are to provide enhanced meteorological observations in the Canadian Arctic for HIW nowcasting (short-range forecast) and NWP model verification, evaluation, and process studies and to provide recommendations on the optimal cost-effective observing system for the Canadian Arctic. Both sites are in provincial/territorial capitals and are economic hubs for the region; they also act as transportation gateways to the north and are in the path of several common Arctic storm tracks. The supersites are located at or next to major airports and existing Meteorological Service of Canada ground-based weather stations that provide standard meteorological surface observations and upper-air radiosonde observations; they are also uniquely situated in close proximity to frequent overpasses by polar-orbiting satellites. The suite of in situ and remote sensing instruments at each site is completely automated (no on-site operator) and operates continuously in all weather conditions, providing near-real-time data to operational weather forecasters, the public, and researchers via obrs.ca. The two sites have similar instruments, including mobile Doppler weather radars, multiple vertically profiling and/or scanning lidars (Doppler, ceilometer, water vapour), optical disdrometers, precipitation gauges in different shielded configurations, present weather sensors, fog monitoring devices, radiation flux sensors, and other meteorological instruments. Details on the two supersites, the suites of instruments deployed, the data collection methods, and example case studies of HIW events are discussed. CAWS data are publicly accessible via the Canadian Government Open Data Portal (https://doi.org/10.18164/ff771396-b22c-4bc3-844d-38fc697049e9, Mariani et al., 2022a, and https://doi.org/10.18164/d92ed3cf-4ba0-4473-beec-357ec45b0e78, Mariani et al., 2022b); this dataset is being used to improve our understanding of synoptic and fine-scale meteorological processes in the Arctic and sub-Arctic, including HIW detection and prediction and NWP verification, assimilation, and processes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.215 | 0.191 |
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".