MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152323722 · doi:10.1175/2009waf2222273.1

Utilizing Normalized Anomalies to Assess Synoptic-Scale Weather Events in the Western United States

2009· article· en· W2152323722 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnomaly (physics)ClimatologySynoptic scale meteorologyEnvironmental scienceTornadoTroposphereScale (ratio)Magnitude (astronomy)MeteorologyGeographyGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Synoptic-scale weather events over the western United States are objectively ranked based on their associated tropospheric anomalies. Data from the NCEP 6-h reanalysis fields from 1948 to 2006 are compared to a 30-yr (1971–2000) reanalysis climatology. The relative rarity of an event is measured by the number of standard deviations that the 1000–200-hPa height, temperature, wind, and moisture fields depart from climatology. The top 20 synoptic-scale events were identified over the western United States, adjacent eastern Pacific Ocean, Mexico, and Canada. Events that composed the top 20 tended to be very anomalous in several, if not all four, of the atmospheric variables. The events included the northern Intermountain West region heavy rainfall and Yellowstone tornado of mid-July 1987 (ranked 5th), the Montana floods of September 1986 (ranked 4th), and the historic 1962 “Columbus Day” windstorm in the Pacific Northwest (ranked 10th). In addition, the top 10 most anomalous events were identified for each month and for each of the variables investigated revealing additional significant weather events. Finally, anomaly return periods were computed for each variable at a variety of levels. To place a given anomaly in perspective for a specific level or element, forecasters need information on the frequency with which that anomaly is observed. These return periods can be utilized by forecasters to compare forecast anomalies to the actual occurrence of similar anomalies for the element and level of interest to gauge the potential significance of the event. It is believed that this approach may allow forecasters to better understand the historical significance of an event and provide additional information to the user community.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.217 · 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