Predicted cloud droplet numbers Davos Wolfgang
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud droplet properties were predicted between February 24 and March 8 2019 for the measurement site Davos Wolfgang (1630 m a.s.l., LON: 9.853594, LAT: 46.835577). Droplet calculations are carried out with the physically based aerosol activation parameterization of Morales and Nenes (2014), employing the “characteristic velocity” approach of Morales and Nenes (2010). Aerosol size distribution observations required to predict the cloud droplet numbers and maximum in-cloud supersaturation are obtained from a Scanning Mobility Particle Size Spectrometer (SMPS) instrument deployed at Davos Wolfgang (https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/aerosol-data-davos-wolfgang). The required vertical velocity measurements are derived from the wind Doppler Lidar (https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/lidar-wind-profiler-data) deployed at the same station and are extracted from the first bin of the instrument, being 200 m above ground level. The hygroscopic properties of the particles measured at Davos Wolfgang could not be estimated, owing to a lack of concurrent CCN measurements. As a sensitivity test, droplet calculations are performed assuming two different values of the aerosol hygroscopicity parameter, 0.1 and 0.25, based on the analysis carried out for Weissfluhjoch. Additional information can be found in Section 2.3 [here](https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2020-1036/).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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 it