Influence of spatial inhomogeneity of tornado occurrence on estimated tornado hazard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tornado hazard assessment is often based on the consideration that the spatial distribution of tornado occurrence is homogeneous in a region. Although this assumption simplifies the analysis, it could overestimate and underestimate tornado hazard for regions with lower and higher tornadic activity if an average rate of tornado occurrence is employed. The degree of overestimation and underestimation is unknown. This study is focused on the assessment of the impact of spatial inhomogeneity of tornado occurrence on the estimated tornado hazard and the development of tornado hazard maps for southern Ontario. The results indicate that at the factored design wind speed the exceedance probability for tornadic winds is much smaller than that for synoptic winds, even if the spatial inhomogeneity of tornado occurrence is considered. Furthermore, the results show that the spatial inhomogeneity of tornado occurrence has significant impact on the spatial tornado hazard level, that the return period values of tornado wind speed vary significantly over the considered region, and that the inhomogeneity must be considered in developing probabilistic quantitative tornado hazard maps.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".