On the Dynamics of Two-Dimensional Hurricane-like Concentric Rings Vortex Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the fact that asymmetries in hurricanes (e.g., spiral rainbands, polygonal eyewalls, and mesovortices) have long been observed in radar and satellite imagery, many aspects of their dynamics remain unsolved, particularly in the formation of the secondary eyewall. The underlying associated dynamical processes need to be better understood to advance the science of hurricane intensity forecasting. To fill this gap, a simple 2D barotropic “dry” model is used to simulate a hurricane-like concentric rings vortex. The empirical normal mode (ENM) technique, together with Eliassen–Palm (EP) flux calculations, are used to isolate wave modes from the model datasets to investigate their impact on the changes in the structure and intensity of the simulated hurricane-like vortex. From the ENM diagnostics, it is shown that asymmetric disturbances outside a strong vortex ring with a large vorticity skirt may relax to form concentric rings of enhanced vorticity that contain a secondary wind maximum. The fact that the critical radius for some of the leading modes is close to the location where the secondary ring of enhanced vorticity develops suggests that a wave–mean flow interaction mechanism based on vortex Rossby wave (VRW) dynamics may explain important dynamical aspects of concentric eyewall genesis (CEG).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".