MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597000338 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-16-0461.1

The OWLeS IOP2b Lake-Effect Snowstorm: Mechanisms Contributing to the Tug Hill Precipitation Maximum

2017· article· en· W2597000338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leah S. Campbell, W. James Steenburgh

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPrecipitationWinter stormFront (military)StormShorePlateau (mathematics)Tug of warGeologyEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake-effect storms frequently produce a pronounced precipitation maximum over the Tug Hill Plateau (hereafter Tug Hill), which rises 500 m above Lake Ontario’s eastern shore. Here Weather Research and Forecasting Model simulations are used to examine the mechanisms responsible for the Tug Hill precipitation maximum observed during IOP2b of the Ontario Winter Lake-effect Systems (OWLeS) field program. A key contributor was a land-breeze front that formed along Lake Ontario’s southeastern shoreline and extended inland and northeastward across Tug Hill, cutting obliquely across the lake-effect system. Localized ascent along this boundary contributed to an inland precipitation maximum even in simulations in which Tug Hill was removed. The presence of Tug Hill intensified and broadened the ascent region, increasing parameterized depositional and accretional hydrometeor growth, and reducing sublimational losses. The inland extension of the land-breeze front and its contribution to precipitation enhancement appear to be unidentified previously and may be important in other lake-effect storms over Tug Hill.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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