MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fine structure of a Greenland reverse tip jet: a numerical simulation

2009· article· en· W2078058411 on OpenAlexafffund
Tadayasu Ohigashi, G. W. K. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueTellus A Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNational Center for Atmospheric Research
KeywordsGeologyMesoscale meteorologyJet (fluid)AnticycloneWind speedOrographic liftJet streamAtmospheric sciencesThermal windClimatologyWind shearMeteorologyOceanographyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reverse tip jets are strong low-level winds with easterly component that form near the southern tip of Greenland. In the present study, a reverse tip jet case which occurred from 21 to 22 December 2000 was examined to clarify its fine structure using a numerical model with a horizontal resolution of 3 km. The reverse tip jet, showing the supergeostrophic wind speed with a maximum wind speed in excess of 45 m s-1, extended from the east coast of Greenland to the west of Cape Farewell with anticyclonic curvature. A cloud free region coincided with the jet indicated that there was a mesoscale downdraft. Along the eastern edge of the jet, a banded cloud formed between the upstream easterly wind and the colder northerly wind that is a part of the jet and is located along the east coast. This cloud was associated with large gradients in surface wind speed, temperature, moisture, and heat flux. A maximum surface total heat flux of 300Wm-2 coincided with the location of the jet. It is suggested that the orographic deflection byGreenland’s large-scale topography as well as small-scale downslope winds behind mountains with fiords causes the reverse tip jet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTellus A Dynamic Meteorology and OceanographySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207