MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084395444 · doi:10.1109/iclp.2012.6344395

Analysis of lightning detection network data for selected areas in Canada

2012· article· en· W2084395444 on OpenAlexaffabout
V. Shostak, Olexandr Bormotov, D. Pavanello, W. Janischewskyj, Farhad Rachidi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)AlgorithmComputer sciencePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of Canadian Lightning Detection Network (CLDN) data recorded during years 2004 - 2006 is performed for two selected areas in Canada within a 20-km radius around two tall structures: the CN Tower (CNT, 553 m) in Toronto and the Superstack (SS, 380 m) in Sudbury. The explored lightning characteristics include stroke polarity, lake water or land termination (WT or LT), ground stroke densities N <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gs</sub> , stroke peak currents (including values of I <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">50%</sub> , I <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">95%</sub> , I <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">5%</sub> ), distributions of parameters. The results show noticeable differences between characteristics of lightning terminated to lake water and land. In Toronto area (N <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gs</sub> ≈ 3.24 strokes/(km <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ·year)), a commonly accepted feature, according to which positive strokes exhibit dominating peak currents in comparison to negative ones, is confirmed only for WT lightning (not close to the CNT), especially in the range of high currents. For LT lightning in the range of current amplitudes close to 50% values, the negative strokes are characterized by larger peaks (by more than 30%) with respect to positive ones. No positive strokes to water were recorded within 5 km near the CNT during the period of analysis. While WT events exhibit a lower N <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gs</sub> than LT ones, they show larger peak currents. The Sudbury area, characterized by a lower lightning activity (N <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gs</sub> ≈ 0.91 strokes/(km2·year)), shows the common relation between peak currents of positive and negative polarities (first are dominating). For the SS, the estimated number of upward lightning looks rather low: 0.47 strokes or 0.37 flashes per year. For the CNT, it is about 32 strokes or 14 upward flashes per year. Distributions of N <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gs</sub> along the distance from the tall objects, beside the increased levels near object, contain dips next to object (up to 3 - 7 km).

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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207