Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polar lows (PLs) are small‐scale and intense low‐pressure systems that form at high latitudes in both hemispheres. Due to their limited spatial scale and brief lifetimes, weather and climate models are often unable to resolve these systems. One way to overcome this problem is to define a suitable proxy for PLs, with which the likelihood of PL formation can be assessed even in coarse‐resolution datasets. This study draws on previous studies and an empirical database of 63 PLs to quantify the respective influences of low‐level static stability and upper‐level forcing on PL formation, as both of these factors are known to favour PL development. Little redundancy between the two parameters is found. After defining threshold values for the two parameters, climatological properties of favourable conditions for PLs are computed for the North Atlantic, the North‐West Pacific and the Southern Hemisphere. The low‐level static stability, which is strongly modified during marine cold‐air outbreaks, puts important constraints on where PLs can form, while the upper‐level forcing determines whether or not they will form. As a result of the climatologically lower tropopause in the Labrador Sea region, favourable conditions for PLs occur more often there than in the Nordic Seas, which has long been believed to be the main PL region in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). In the Southern Hemisphere, favourable conditions for PLs occur substantially less often than in the NH. The PL index defined here is suitable for other climatological studies and PL forecasting. Copyright © 2011 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".