MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410301922 · doi:10.1175/jamc-d-24-0186.1

Misreporting of Freezing Fog during Snowfall Conditions in U.S. METAR Observations

2025· article· en· W4410301922 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Landolt, Darcy Jacobson, Ismail Gültepe, Warren Underwood, Andrew Gaydos, Stephanie DiVito, Hans T. Mohling, Anne-Marie Bierbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersFederal Aviation AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Misreported weather conditions at airports can cause significant and unnecessary flight delays and cancellations, while increasing costs to the airlines. In 2022, updates to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) holdover time tables for aircraft ground deicing operations included guidance for snow (SN) mixed with freezing fog (FZFG). Holdover time tables provide information on the length of time (i.e., holdover time) anti-icing fluids will protect the aircraft prior to takeoff under various winter weather conditions. The new holdover times for SN mixed with FZFG are significantly shorter than the holdover times for SN or FZFG reported individually. Prior to the introduction of this guidance, pilots would often assess the SN and FZFG conditions individually and use the most conservative holdover time between the two weather conditions. The new guidance has led pilots and ground deicing crews to express concern that FZFG conditions are often reported with SN when FZFG is not present. To assess this, 1-min-observation data from selected Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) locations prone to SN and FZFG conditions were analyzed to determine if an FZFG signal could be detected using measurements other than visibility during SN conditions. Additionally, Meteorological Aerodrome Reports (METARs) from two nearly collocated airports (one in the United States and one in Canada) were analyzed since Canada relies on human observers to report obscurations, including FZFG. The outcome of both methods indicates a significant number (∼85%) of misreported FZFG reports during SN conditions and provides a basis for improving the automated weather-reporting algorithms. Significance Statement The purpose of this work is to demonstrate a problem with the method for automatically reporting freezing fog with snow conditions using the current automated weather observing systems in the United States. The key findings show that freezing fog is misreported with snow conditions at least 85% of the time. Incorrect reporting of freezing fog conditions with snow can have significant impacts on aircraft ground deicing operations, resulting in unnecessary flight delays and cancellations, and may require the aircraft to be deiced multiple times unnecessarily, leading to increased costs and decreased efficiency during winter conditions for airline operators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207