On the importance of synoptic classification methods with respect to environmental phenomena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the most important goals of synoptic climatology is to analyse the relationships between atmospheric circulation and surface environmental conditions. Since manual (subjective) classification might reflect differently environmental phenomena as compared to computer assisted (semi‐objective) classification, a comparison between both classifications was performed for the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) for 10 years. The overall frequencies of the 19 recurring synoptic types characterising the circulation regime over the EM are similar for both methods (correlation coefficient = 0.96, p ‐value < 0.0001). Nevertheless, comparing the classifications on a day‐to‐day basis for the three most common types showed a large degree of disagreement between the two. For synoptic types with a deep horizontal pressure gradient both classifications yielded the highest agreement (over 50%), improving the consistency between both classifications. Yarnal's ( 1993 ) ‘environment‐to‐circulation’ approach was tested on three surface environment processes: air pollutants, desert dust intrusions, and flash floods. Our results indicate that the weak pressure gradients associated with high ozone levels make the classification more difficult for both methods. Regarding dust outbreaks, classifications point on the importance of the cold cyclone location rather than its pressure gradient. As for flash floods, the flow pattern at the surface level is insufficient to predict atmospheric conditions prone for their occurrence, suggesting that upper air data is an essential factor for determining such highly convective events. Finally, two new approaches to evaluate the quality of classifications are presented, demonstrated on two frequent circulation systems persisting over the EM. A qualitative approach compares the composite mean sea level pressure maps from each classification, while a quantitative approach compares the resultant winds at a central site. This study demonstrates that comparing different synoptic classification methodologies and different environmental applications can lead to additional and valuable insights on the interaction between the environment and synoptic‐scale circulation. Copyright © 2011 Royal Meteorological Society
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".