MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080402544 · doi:10.3402/tellusa.v58i2.14755

Transition of a synoptic system to a polar low via interaction with the orography of Greenland

2006· article· en· W2080402544 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebekah Martin, G. W. K. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueTellus A Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrographyPolarClimatologyGeologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceGeographyPrecipitationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case study of a polar low that occurred over the Labrador Sea from December 29–31, 1997 was performed using the Penn State–NCAR Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5). The polar low was imaged by the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) on the RADARSAT-1 satellite and as a result, unique high resolution information on the polar low’s surface expression is available. This low is also of interest as it formed from a synoptic-scale low pressure system that underwent a bifurcation through an interaction with the topography of Greenland. Our model results showthat the polar lowachieved a minimum central pressure of 954 hPa with maximum 10 m wind speeds in excess of 30 ms −1 . Coincident SSM/I data are in agreement with the model surface wind speed field. Sensitivity studies showed that the genesis of the low was relatively insensitive to air–sea fluxes of sensible and latent heat. The model precipitation field indicates the presence of features reminiscent of rainbands observed to occur in association with tropical cyclones, as well as frontal features typically seen in mid-latitude baroclinic systems. In addition, our model results indicate that precipitation as well as the surface wind contributes to the polar low’s surface expression as imaged by SAR.

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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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