MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reply on RC1

2025· peer-review· en· W4413137368 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhipeng Qu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMesoscale meteorologyMeteorologyNumerical weather predictionLiquid water contentIce crystalsAtmospheric sciencesCloud physicsIcingCloud computingGeologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> This study examines the impact of inclusion of secondary ice production (SIP) parameterizations on the cloud microphysics and dynamics in numerical weather prediction (NWP) simulations under mid-latitude winter conditions. Hindcast mesoscale model simulations were performed for two flights from the 2019 In-Cloud ICing and Large-drop Experiment (ICICLE) field campaign. The simulations used a horizontal grid spacing of 250 meters and employed a detailed triple-moment bulk microphysics scheme capable of predicting the liquid fraction of hydrometeors. SIP processes, including the Hallett-Mossop (HM) and fragmentation of freezing drops (FFD), are parameterized in this study. The NWP simulation results are compared with observational data collected during the ICICLE campaign. Sensitivity tests were conducted to highlight the importance of better quantifying SIP production rate in the NWP models. The findings indicate that SIP significantly enhances the simulated cloud ice number concentration and ice water content, particularly under strong convective conditions during winter. Additionally, the results reveal that the simulations are highly sensitive to the parameterization of HM and FFD processes due to the interaction between these two SIP mechanisms. High ice water content (HIWC) production is closely associated with SIP in strong convective conditions, whereas in stratiform conditions, HIWC can occur without a significant impact from SIP.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207