Winter lightning behavior in non-severe and severe thundersnow events [abstract]
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter lightning behavior in non-severe and severe thundersnow events Two cases of convective snow are examined with one being a typical event and another which was severe.The non-severe case was associated with a well developed surface low pressure system over southwest Missouri on the morning of 10 December, 2003.This event had 16 cloud-to-ground (CG) strikes in a time span of just greater than three hours, most of which occurred on the western side of the band axis.Snowfall amounts were as high as 36 cm (14 in).This event only had one positive strike with Doppler radar reflectivity values exceeding 30 dBz only once as well.The severe case occurred in the evening in northern Illinois on 11 February 2003.This case was associated with a cold front and a clipper-type system moving south out of Canada.At least three locations observed winds that exceeded the wind criterion for a severe thunderstorm that evening.There were 33 CG strikes associated with this system in a time span of just over two hours.All of the strikes CG strikes were of negative polarity, most of which were located in areas with the highest radar reflectivities.Deeper convection aided the high flash count and flash rate for the severe case.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it