Measuring Tornado Dynamics with In-Situ Instrumentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making accurate barometric pressure measurements in tornado cores using an in-situ probe is difficult due to very high wind velocities, heavy rain, and wind driven debris. Special considerations apply to the shape of the probe, as it must remain stationary during tornado passage. In-situ pressure measurements are particularly challenging as wind flow over any object will decrease the local static pressure and cause an erroneous barometric pressure measurement. This is especially important for the wind velocities exceeding 80 meters/second typical inside tornado cores. A specially-designed hardened probe called a "Hardened In-Situ Tornado Pressure Recorder" (HITPR) has been developed by the author at Applied Research Associates Inc.. The HITPR has addressed the above-mentioned challenges by using a novel probe geometry that compensates for air flow curvature when measuring pressure, and has a high degree of aerodynamic stability. With this method, accurate measurements of the free-stream static pressure, wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and relative humidity can be made inside tornado cores. The measurement technique will be described in the present paper, as well as actual pressure measurements of tornado cores, including the 100 millibar pressure drop measured for a violent F-4 tornado on June 24th, 2003.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".