MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094232076 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2011.607146

Composite Soundings Associated with Severe and Tornadic Thunderstorms in Central Alberta

2011· article· en· W2094232076 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Maxwell L. Dupilka, Gerhard W. Reuter

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsTornadoThunderstormHodographGeologySupercellStormAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologySevere weatherClimatologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composite profiles of temperature, humidity and wind are constructed for severe thunderstorms that formed over central Alberta, Canada, during the period 1967–2000. Storms were divided into three categories consisting of 13 non-tornadic storms which produced hail ≥ 3 cm in diameter but no reported tornadoes, 61 weak tornadoes (F0 and F1) and 13 significant tornadoes (F2–F4). All three composites showed potential instability through most of the sounding. However, thermodynamic parameters did not discriminate among the three categories. In contrast, however, composite hodographs did show noticeable differences among the three groups. The hodograph for the significant tornado composite exhibited strong low-level veering winds having 0–3 km helicity of 65 m2 s−2 and southwest winds of about 20 m s−1 in the mid- to upper levels. The hodograph for the weak tornado composite showed weak low-level veering winds (0–3 km helicity of 17 m2 s−2) and much lighter winds overall compared with the other two composites. The non-tornado composite hodograph had nearly unidirectional southwest winds of about 15 m s−1 in the mid- to upper levels. The significant tornadic storms were similar to typical mid-latitude supercell hodographs.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207