MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386282781 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-22-0294.1

Identifying Important Microphysical Properties and Processes for Marine Fog Forecasts

2023· article· en· W4386282781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan H. Pope, Adele L. Igel

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsDrizzleEnvironmental scienceVisibilityAerosolMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesPrecipitationGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, a marine fog event that occurred from 0000 to 1800 UTC 7 September 2018 near Canada’s Grand Banks is used to investigate the sensitivity of simulated fog properties to six model parameters found primarily in the microphysics scheme. To do so, we ran a large suite of regional simulations that spanned the life cycle of the fog event using the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS). We randomly selected parameter combinations for the simulation suite and used Gaussian process regression to emulate the response of a variety of simulated fog properties to the parameters. We find that the microphysics shape parameter, which controls the relative width of the droplet size distribution, and the aerosol number concentration have the greatest impact on fog in terms of spatial extent, duration, and surface visibility. In general, parameters that reduce mean fall speed of droplets and/or suppress drizzle formation lead to reduced visibility in fog but also delayed onset, shorter lifetimes, and reduced spatial extent. The importance of the distribution width suggests a need for better characterization of this property for fog droplet distributions and better treatment of this property in microphysics schemes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207