Composite Soundings Associated with Severe and Tornadic Thunderstorms in Central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".