MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408431547 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-12737

A method for characterizing the spatial organization of convection in deep convective systems’ cloud shield

2025· preprint· en· W4408431547 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Netz, Thomas Fiolleau, Rémy Roca

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvectionShieldCloud computingDeep convectionMeteorologyComputer scienceMechanicsGeologyPhysicsPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep convective systems (DCSs) play a major role in the radiative budget and the water cycle over the tropics, as they are responsible for a significant part of the tropical precipitation and represents the major contributors to extreme rain rates. The spatial arrangement of deep convection within the convective system’s cloud shield exerts a strong influence on the morphology of the systems shield yet difficult to quantify objectively.A new method is introduced that aims to evaluate this spatial arrangement of convective areas in the cloud shield. The method is based on 2D autocorrelation metrics and a stochastic approach to generate randomly organized scenes. A bootstrap technique permits to compare each scene with respect to these stochastic distributions. The technique is applied on a large satellite-based dataset and a non-supervised classification of spatial arrangement is performed. The classification reveals well separated classes corresponding to well identified organization of convection. The method is further applied onto idealized km scale simulations and is shown to hold also for the model. A comparison of the results of our approach with existing metrics will also be shown at the conference to highlight the added value of the present effort.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207