Simulations of Lake-effect Storms during the Ontario Winter Lake-effect Systems Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulations of Lake-effect Storms during the Ontario Winter Lake-effect Systems Project \nUsing the SUNY Oswego version of the Weather Research and Forecast modeling system (WRF) during the Ontario Winter Lake-effect Systems (OWLeS) Project in the 2013-14 winter season proved to be a useful forecasting tool during several Intensive Observation Periods (IOPs) by simulating correct lake-effect snow band structure, movement, and location. However, in many other IOPs, the model was inaccurate with one or several of these properties. The objective of this research is to identify combinations of physics parameterization options and model domain geometry to produce the most accurate WRF simulations. Model evaluation is based on comparison with field observations such as radar, surface, upper-air, and profiler data collected by student researchers. Several experiments involved changes in domain geometry such as expanding the outer domain, increasing grid resolution, and using more frequent lateral boundary condition updates.\nA doubly-nested grid was set up to determine the capabilities and limitations of the WRF to simulate small-scale circulations (e.g., meso-vortices) that were observed during the field program. The outer grid (9-km resolution) covers the eastern two-thirds of the continental United States; a 3-km domain spans the Great Lakes and Northeastern states, and a 1-km fine grid covers the Lake Ontario region. An important finding in regards to the WRF model’s capabilities using the 1-km fine grid is the simulation of meso-vortices of approximately 5 km in diameter along sharp reflectivity gradients located within lake-effect snow bands (e.g., IOP 7, 6-7 Jan 2014). IOP 7 field observations match the model output as radar data support numerous meso-vortices along an observed sharp reflectivity gradient on the north side of the band. Another case, IOP 22 (27-28 Jan 2014), produced numerous meso-vortices along a sharp reflectivity gradient located on the south side of the observed snow band. The model agreed with these observations.\nKey Words: numerical modeling, lake-effect storms, OWLeS, meso-vortices
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".