Comparative experimental validation of microwave hyperspectral atmospheric soundings in clear-sky conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Accurate observations of atmospheric temperature and water vapor profiles are essential for weather forecasting and climate change detection. Hyperspectral radiance measurements afford a useful means to retrieve these thermodynamic variable fields, by harnessing the rich information contained in the electromagnetic wave spectrum of the atmospheric radiation. Compared to infrared radiometry, microwave radiometry holds the ability to penetrate clouds and potentially achieve an all-sky thermodynamic retrieval. Recent technological advancements have enabled the development of a hyperspectral microwave radiometer, the High Spectral Resolution Airborne Microwave Sounder (HiSRAMS), which we employ in this study to retrieve the atmospheric temperature and water vapor profiles under the clear-sky condition, in comparison with an infrared hyperspectrometer, the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI). HiSRAMS and AERI measurements under different viewing geometries have been acquired and compared for atmospheric retrieval. When both instruments are placed on the ground to acquire zenith-pointing measurements, the infrared hyperspectral measurements exhibit higher information content and greater vertical resolution for temperature and water vapor retrievals than the microwave hyperspectral measurements. A synergistic fusion of HiSRAMS and AERI measurements from the air and ground, respectively, is tested. This “sandwich” sounding of the atmosphere takes advantage of the complementary information contents of the two instruments and is found to notably improve retrieval 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".