Extratropical cyclone climatology across eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Extratropical cyclone (ETC) tracks across eastern Canada are examined by applying a Lagrangian tracking algorithm to the lower‐tropospheric relative vorticity field of reanalysis data. Both the seasonal cycle and the interannual variability of ETCs are quantified in terms of overall cyclone frequency, intensity, and regions of development and decay. We find that ETCs travelling to eastern Canada tend to develop over the Rockies, the Great Lakes and the US East Coast. The ETCs are most intense over Newfoundland and the North Atlantic Ocean, confirming previous findings. While ETCs at cities along the Atlantic coastline (e.g. St. John's) are dominated by East Coast cyclones (which are intense in winter), those inland (e.g. Toronto) track primarily from the Great Lakes. ETCs that develop over the Gulf of Mexico affect eastern Canada infrequently, but those that do tend to be intense. The interannual variability of the wintertime ETCs is influenced by the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Significant ENSO‐related variability is found over most regions of southern Canada, except on the east coast. Although ETCs at Toronto are significantly modulated by ENSO, no visible changes are found at St. John's. These ENSO‐related ETC changes are mostly due to the shifts in ETC development regions, with minor changes in the travelling direction of ETCs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".