MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spiral Bands in a Simulated Hurricane. Part I: Vortex Rossby Wave Verification

2001· article· en· W2070770613 on OpenAlexaff
Yongsheng Chen, M. K. Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEyeRossby wavePotential vorticityVortexMesoscale meteorologyMechanicsPhysicsRainbandVorticitySpiral (railway)GeologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyTropical cycloneConvection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An initially axisymmetric hurricane was explicitly simulated using the high-resolution PSU–NCAR nonhydrostatic mesoscale model (MM5). Spiral potential vorticity (PV) bands that formed in the model were analyzed. It was shown that PV bands and cloud bands are strongly coupled. The PV anomalies in and at the top of the boundary layer interact with friction to produce upward motion that gives rise to the inner cloud bands. The propagation properties of the PV bands were studied and found to be consistent with predictions of vortex Rossby wave theory. In the control simulation with full physics, continuous generation of PV through latent heat release in the eyewall and spiral rainbands maintain a “bowl-shape” PV field. Inward transport of high PV by the vortex Rossby waves and the process of nonlinear mixing tend to increase the inner-core PV and in turn intensify the hurricane. On the other hand, frictional and PV mixing processes acted linearly to spin down the hurricane to a midlevel vortex in a dry run, which indicates that a monopolar PV structure is the asymptotic stable state in the absence of condensation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations191
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207