MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106191444 · doi:10.1175/2008jamc1935.1

Lake-Effect Thunderstorms in the Lower Great Lakes

2008· article· en· W2106191444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott M. Steiger, Robert S. Hamilton, Jason M. Keeler, Richard E. Orville

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState University of New York OswegoPennsylvania State UniversityState University of New YorkSyracuse University
KeywordsStormThunderstormWinter stormConvective storm detectionEnvironmental scienceRadiosondeConvective available potential energyLightning detectionSnowClimatologyDepth soundingMeteorologyPrecipitationAtmospheric sciencesGeologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning, radar, and radiosonde data were examined to determine how frequently lake-effect storms (rain/snow) with lightning occurred over and near the lower Great Lakes region (Lakes Erie and Ontario) from September 1995 through March 2007. On average, lake-effect lightning occurred on 7.9 days and with 5.8 storm events during a particular cool season (September–March). The CG lightning with these storms had little inland extent and was usually limited to a few flashes per storm. Some storms had considerably more, with the most intense storm (based on National Lightning Detection Network observations) producing 1551 CG flashes over a 4-day period. Thundersnow events were examined in more detail because of the rarity of this phenomenon across the United States. Most lake-effect thundersnow events (75%) occurred in November and December. An analysis of model sounding data using the Buffalo Toolkit for Lake Effect Snow (BUFKIT) software package in which lower boundary conditions can be modified by lake surfaces showed that thundersnow events had an 82% increase in the mean height of the −10°C level when compared with nonelectrified lake-effect snowstorms (1.2 vs 0.7 km AGL), had higher lake-induced equilibrium levels (EL; above 3.6 km AGL) and convective available potential energy (CAPE; >500 J kg−1), had low wind shear environments, and were intense, single-band storms. A nomogram of the altitude of the −10°C isotherm and EL proved to be useful in predicting lake-effect thundersnowstorms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207