The Secondary Production of Ice in Cumulus Experiment (SPICULE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The secondary ice process (SIP) is a major microphysical process, which can result in rapid enhancement of ice particle concentration in the presence of preexisting ice. SPICULE was conducted to further investigate the effect of collision–coalescence on the rate of the fragmentation of freezing drop (FFD) SIP mechanism in cumulus congestus clouds. Measurements were conducted over the Great Plains and central United States from two coordinated aircraft, the NSF Gulfstream V (GV) and SPEC Learjet 35A, both equipped with state-of-the-art microphysical instrumentation and vertically pointing W- and Ka-band radars, respectively. The GV primarily targeted measurements of subcloud aerosols with subsequent sampling in warm cloud. Simultaneously, the Learjet performed multiple penetrations of the ascending cumulus congestus (CuCg) cloud top. First primary ice was typically detected at temperatures colder than −10°C, consistent with measured ice nucleating particles. Subsequent production of ice via FFD SIP was strongly related to the concentration of supercooled large drops (SLDs), with diameters from about 0.2 to a few millimeters. The concentration of SLDs is directly linked to the rate of collision–coalescence, which depends primarily on the subcloud aerosol size distribution and cloud-base temperature. SPICULE supports previous observational results showing that FFD SIP efficiency could be deduced from the product of cloud-base temperature and maximum diameter of drops measured ∼300 m above cloud base. However, new measurements with higher concentrations of aerosol and total cloud-base drop concentrations show an attenuating effect on the rate of coalescence. The SPICULE dataset provides rich material for validation of numerical schemes of collision–coalescence and SIP to improve weather prediction simulations
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".