MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408038556 · doi:10.5194/hess-29-1135-2025

Leveraging a radar-based disdrometer network to develop a probabilistic precipitation phase model in eastern Canada

2025· article· en· W4408038556 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexis Bédard-Therrien, François Anctil, Julie M. Thériault, Olivier Chalifour, Fanny Payette, Alexandre Vidal, Daniel F. Nadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQuébec Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte Contre les Changements ClimatiquesHydro-Québec
KeywordsDisdrometerPrecipitationProbabilistic logicRadarRemote sensingEnvironmental sciencePhase (matter)MeteorologyQuantitative precipitation estimationComputer scienceGeologyRain gaugeTelecommunicationsGeographyArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study presents a probabilistic model that partitions the precipitation phase based on hourly measurements from a network of radar-based disdrometers in eastern Canada. The network consists of 27 meteorological stations located in a boreal climate for the years 2020–2023. Precipitation phase observations showed a 2 m air temperature interval between 0–4 °C, where probabilities of occurrence of solid, liquid, or mixed precipitation significantly overlapped. Single-phase precipitation was found to occur more frequently than mixed-phase precipitation. Probabilistic phase-guided partitioning (PGP) models of increasing complexity using random forest algorithms were developed. The PGP models classified the precipitation phase and partitioned the precipitation accordingly into solid and liquid amounts. PGP_basic is based on 2 m air temperature and site elevation, while PGP_hydromet integrates relative humidity, surface pressure, and precipitation rate. PGP_full includes all previous data, along with atmospheric reanalysis data, the 1000–850 hPa layer thickness, and temperature lapse rate. The PGP models were compared to benchmark precipitation-phase-partitioning methods. These included a model with a single temperature threshold set at 1.5 °C, a linear-transition model with dual temperature thresholds of −0.38 and 5 °C, and a psychrometric balance model. Among the benchmark models, the single temperature threshold had the best classification performance (F1 score of 0.74) due to a low count of mixed-phase events. The other benchmark models tended to over-predict mixed-phase precipitation in order to decrease the partitioning error. All PGP models showed significant phase classification improvement by reproducing the observed overlapping precipitation phases based on 2 m air temperature. PGP_hydromet and PGP_full displayed the best classification performance (F1 score of 0.84). In terms of partitioning error, PGP_full had the lowest RMSE (0.27 mm) and the least variability in performance. The RMSE of the single-temperature-threshold model was the highest (0.40 mm) and showed the greatest performance variability. An input variable importance analysis revealed that the additional data used in the more complex PGP models mainly improved mixed-phase precipitation prediction. The improvement of mixed-phase prediction remains a challenge. Relative humidity was deemed to be the least important input variable used due to consistent near-saturation water vapour conditions. Additionally, the reanalysis atmospheric data proved to be an important factor in increasing the robustness of the partitioning process. This study establishes a basis for integrating automated phase observations into a hydrometeorological observation network and for developing probabilistic precipitation phase models.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicPrecipitation Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207