A Machine-Learning Method to Integrate Arctic Supersite Observations and Diagnose Weather Element Occurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate detection and quantification of light precipitation is problematic, particularly in the Arctic region. Satellite and ground-based observations of light precipitation are frequently underestimated at high latitudes. Remote sensing and in-situ observations from the Iqaluit, NU supersite (64oN, 69oW) were integrated to train, develop, and validate a random forest (RF) model that can diagnose precipitation type and other weather element occurrences. Observations from multiple lidars, optical disdrometers, traditional precipitation gauges and meteorological aerodrome (METAR) reports from 2015–2020 were integrated and used in the RF model development. The model was trained at Iqaluit, validated over different time periods, and applied to another region (Whitehorse, YT; 61oN, 135oW). Results indicate the importance of accurate visibility observations to train the model. Overall, the RF model was capable of distinguishing precipitation types and demonstrated the potential to be used at all sites/networks where similar automated and cost-effective instruments are already deployed (e.g. radar sites, airports with ceilometers, etc.). This would reduce the dependency on METARs while improving weather element occurrence accuracy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".