Hodographs of Slowly Rotating Winds in Midlatitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Trend analysis of hourly wind direction angle recorded at nine meteorological stations across southern Canada (in the 43°–53°N belt) identified wind direction rotation periods in the range of 7–9 days. Rotation persists during the “summertime” season from May to mid-October during 1953–2001. Rotation with a 7.5-day period was also established in the 850-hPa geostrophic summertime wind over the Canadian province of Saskatchewan in 2000. Hodographs built from wind vectors corresponding to consecutive days of the 7.5-day period (summertime average vectors of winds binned into separate days of the period) formed nearly elliptical loops centered around the end point of the net westerly transport vector that ranged from 0.5 to 1.3 m s−1 and was either smaller than or of comparable magnitude to the zonal and meridional oscillations of wind. The observed rotations appear quasi periodic rather than purely periodic, because nearly elliptical loops of relatively large amplitude were present at different hodographs constructed at each location for sampling periods of 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0 days. For sampling periods outside the ~6.5–8.0-day range, the rotational magnitude in a hodograph appears diminished because of partial cancellation of wind vectors in corresponding hodograph bins. Quasi-periodical rotation occurs in the clockwise direction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".