MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Origin of Severe Winds in a Tornadic Bow-Echo Storm over Northern Switzerland

2000· article· en· W2172316497 on OpenAlexaff
Willi Schmid, H. H. Schiesser, Markus Furger, Mario Jenni

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutflowGeologyInflowMesocycloneTornadoVortexStormThunderstormWind shearSquall lineDoppler radarDoppler effectAtmospheric sciencesWind speedMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A severe bow-echo storm over northern Switzerland is investigated.Wind damage occurred along a track 15 km long and some 100 m wide.Damage data, meteorological data from a ground micronet, and Doppler radar data are analyzed.Volume-scan radar data in the direction of the approaching storm are available every 2.5 min.The storm reached a weak-evolution mode when the damage occurred.Updraft impulses followed each other in time steps of typically 5 min.The damage track can be attributed to a strong radar-observed vortex of 2-7km diameter.The vortex developed at a shear line that was formed by the downdraft outflow of an earlier thunderstorm cell.Most of the damage was collocated with the strongest Doppler winds but some of the damage occurred beneath the strongest signature of azimuthal shear.A weak tornado was observed in that shear region.The two extremes in Doppler velocity, associated with the vortex and referred to as inflow and outflow velocities, are analyzed separately.Early strengthening of the vortex at 2-4-km altitude was due to an acceleration of inflow velocity, caused by the rising updraft impulses.Subsequent strengthening at low layers (0-2 km) could be related to acceleration of both the inflow and outflow velocities.At this stage, the diameter of the vortex decreased from about 7 to less than 2 km.The low-level intensification of the vortex is attributed to vortex stretching.Later on, the vortex and inflow velocity at low layers weakened but the outflow velocity remained strong.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207