MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239662235 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-15-0404.1

Predicting the Climatology of Tornado Occurrences in North America with a Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling Framework*

2016· article· en· W2239662235 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Y. S. Cheng, George B. Arhonditsis, David Sills, William A. Gough, Heather Auld

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTornadoClimatologyStormEnvironmental scienceConvective available potential energyConvective storm detectionSevere weatherWind shearTropical cycloneMeteorologyGeologyConvectionGeographyWind speed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Destruction and fatalities from recent tornado outbreaks in North America have raised considerable concerns regarding their climatic and geographic variability. However, regional characterization of tornado activity in relation to large-scale climatic processes remains highly uncertain. Here, a novel Bayesian hierarchical framework is developed for elucidating the spatiotemporal variability of the factors underlying tornado occurrence in North America. It is demonstrated that regional variability of tornado activity can be characterized using a hierarchical parameterization of convective available potential energy, storm relative helicity, and vertical wind shear quantities. It is shown that the spatial variability of tornado occurrence during the warm summer season can be explained by convective available potential energy and storm relative helicity alone, while vertical wind shear is clearly better at capturing the spatial variability of the cool season tornado activity. The results suggest that the Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach is effective for understanding the regional tornadic environment and in forming the basis for establishing tornado prognostic tools in North America.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207