Statistical Differences of Quasigeostrophic Variables, Stability, and Moisture Profiles in North American Storm Tracks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three common synoptic storm tracks observed throughout the United States are the Alberta Clipper, the Colorado cyclone, and the East Coast storm. Numerous studies have been performed on individual storm tracks analyzing quasigeostrophic dynamics, stability, and moisture profiles in each. This study evaluated storms in each track to help diagnose patterns and magnitudes of the aforementioned quantities, documenting how they compare from track to track. Six diagnostic variables were computed to facilitate the comparison of the storm tracks: differential geostrophic absolute vorticity advection, temperature advection, Q-vector divergence, mean layer specific humidity, low-level stability, and midlevel stability. A dataset was compiled, consisting of 101 Alberta Clippers, 165 Colorado cyclones, and 159 East Coast cyclones and mean fields were generated for this comparison. Maxima and minima of the 25th and 75th percentiles were generated to diagnose magnitudes and patterns of strong versus weak cyclones and measure their similarities and differences to the mean patterns. Alberta Clippers were found to show the weakest magnitude of quasigeostrophic variables, while East Coast storms had the strongest magnitudes. Alberta Clippers maintained the lowest moisture content through their life cycle as well. However, East Coast storms were the most stable of the three tracks. Typically, correlations between storm tracks were high; suggesting that storm evolution is similar between tracks, in terms of the patterns of diagnostic variables measured. However, significant magnitude differences in the quasigeostrophic variables distinguished the storms in each track.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".