Orographic Effects on Supercell: Development and Structure, Intensity and Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">Orographic effects on tornadic supercell development, propagation, and structure are investigated using Cloud Model 1 (CM1) with idealized bell-shaped mountains of various heights and a homogeneous fluid flow with a single sounding. It is found that blocking effects are dominative compared to the terrain-induced environmental heterogeneity downwind of the mountain. The orographic effect shifts the storm track towards the left of storm motion, particularly on the lee side of the mountain, when compared to the storm track in the control simulation with no mountain. The terrain blocking effect also enhances the supercells inflow, which was increased more than one hour before the storm approached the terrain peak. The enhanced inflow allows the central region of the storm to exhibit clouds with a greater density of hydrometeors than the control. Moreover, the enhanced inflow increases the areal extent of the supercells precipitation, which, in turn enhances the cold pool outflow serving to enhance the storm’s updraft until becoming strong enough to undercut and weaken the storm considerably. Another aspect of the orographic effects is that downslope winds produce or enhance low-level vertical vorticity directly under the updraft when the storm approaches the mountain peak.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".