MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320038927 · doi:10.1002/qj.4437

Improvements to the parametrization of snow in <scp>AROME</scp> in the context of ice crystal icing

2023· article· en· W4320038927 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jean Wurtz, Dominique Bouniol, Benoît Vié

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFederal Aviation AdministrationTransport Canada
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)GraupelSnowMesoscale meteorologyIcingEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyContext (archaeology)Ice crystalsAtmospheric sciencesConvectionClimatologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ice crystal icing (ICI) poses a threat nowadays for airplane pilots crossing the anvils of tropical mesoscale convective systems (MCSs). The use of fine‐scale operational numerical weather predictions as provided by the French limited‐area model AROME could help to better understand this phenomenon and to help its anticipation. To enable AROME to simulate ICI‐prone conditions, modifications of its single‐moment microphysical scheme Intercity‐Express 3 (ICE3) are tested. Using a temperature‐dependent snow particle distribution deeply impacts the organization and the ice phase of the simulated MCS. Notably, while the size of convective regions decreases, the size of anvil clouds increases and the low stratiform rain increases as well. As a result, by increasing the quantity of snow and decreasing the quantity of graupel, the simulation of ICI‐prone conditions in the anvils of convective systems is enabled. Using this parametrization, further modifications fine‐tune the representation of snow and further increase the size of the anvil cloud. The Marshall–Palmer snow distribution is replaced by a generalized gamma and the terminal fall velocities of snow hydrometeors are parametrized so that they are in closer agreement with observations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207