MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130734316 · doi:10.1256/003590002320603449

The impact of various potential‐vorticity anomalies on multiple frontal cyclogenesis events

2002· article· en· W2130734316 on OpenAlexaff
Da‐Lin Zhang, William Y. Y. Cheng, John R. Gyakum

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCyclogenesisPotential vorticityExtratropical cycloneGeologyClimatologyCyclone (programming language)BaroclinityFrontogenesisAnomaly (physics)Trough (economics)AdvectionAtmospheric sciencesVorticityMeteorologyMesoscale meteorologyPhysicsVortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The influences of various potential vorticity (PV) anomalies on multiple frontal cyclogenesis events are examined using 60 h simulations of a family of six frontal cyclones that developed over the western Atlantic between 0000 UTC 13 March and 1200 UTC 15 March 1992. The cyclogenesis events are characterized by pronounced low‐level baroclinicity along a large‐scale cold front moving over the warm ocean and by multiple propagating perturbations in the two PV rings on the cyclonic‐shear side of an upper‐level jet stream. It is found that the tracks of the frontal cyclones follow closely the distribution of the PV rings, whereas the cyclogenesis occurs in the cold‐frontal zone, and in close proximity to the propagating PV perturbations in the central portion of an upper‐level parent trough. A piecewise PV inversion reveals that the low‐level thermal advection (or the bottom thermal anomaly) contributes the most to the depths of two major frontal cyclones, followed by latent‐heat release and the upper‐level PV anomalies, whereas the opposite order is true for the remaining four weaker frontal cyclones. A series of sensitivity experiments is performed to test the impact of removing the upper‐level PV anomalies individually, or collectively, on the development of a major frontal cyclone (MFC) as an initial‐value problem. It is found that the MFC genesis and its final intensity depend on how much its track departs from the upper‐level PV perturbations. Removing a PV anomaly associated with a major short‐wave trough delays the MFC genesis by 18 h and weakens its final depth by 13 hPa. The largest departure occurs when two upstream PV anomalies are removed collectively, delaying the MFC genesis by 36 h and weakening its final depth by 21 hPa. It appears that the MFC genesis in the first 36 h depends more on the PV anomalies in an inner PV ring, whereas its subsequent development depends more on the PV reservoir in an outer PV ring. It is shown that most of the frontal cyclones can still develop in the absence of diabatic heating, indicating the important role of dry dynamics in controlling the multiple frontal cyclogenesis events. However, the ‘dry’ MFC fails to form a closed isobar when the trough‐related PV anomaly is removed. The associated PV inversion and sensitivity simulation results suggest that even though the low‐level thermal advection plays an important role in deepening the frontal cyclones, it is the upper‐level PV anomalies that provide the necessary forcing for its amplification and the frontal cyclogenesis. It is concluded that the upper‐level propagating multiple PV anomalies play a major role in triggering, but a secondary role in determining the final depth of the multiple frontal cyclones. It is the subsequent growth of the bottom thermal anomaly that accounts for most of the final depth of the frontal cyclones. Copyright © 2002 Royal Meteorological Society

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207