MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2742050728

PLANETARY AND SYNOPTIC SCALE INTERACTIONS IN SOUTHEAST PACIFIC BLOCKING USING POTENTIAL VORTICITY DIAGNOSTICS: MORE EVIDENCE FOR THE PAUCITY OF WAVE- WAVE INTERACTIONS IN SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE BLOCKING

2005· article· en· W2742050728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony R. Lupo, Andrew R. Kunz, John P. Burkhardt, Anheuser Busch

Bibliographic record

Venue34th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology/21st Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/17th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlocking (statistics)ClimatologyAnticycloneNorthern HemisphereForcing (mathematics)Synoptic scale meteorologySouthern HemisphereVorticityStorm trackScale (ratio)Potential vorticityGeologyGeographyMeteorologyOceanographyStormVortex
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climatological studies of blocking in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) demonstrate that blocking events are less common (e.g. Lejenas, 1984; Renwick 1998), and are weaker (e.g. Wiedenmann, et al., 2002; hereafter WLMT02) throughout the SH when compared to their NH counterparts. WLMT02 implied that the relative roles in the interaction between planetary-scale and synoptic-scale waves may partially explain the relative paucity of SH blocking. However, the same study demonstrated that blocking events in the South Pacific sector occur with equal frequency and persistence as those in the northern Pacific. Trenberth and Mo (1985) also suggested that the difference in climatological behavior of blocking events between the two hemispheres may be a result of differences in the dynamics that develop and maintain blocking events. Briefly, the dynamic support for blocking events comes from the influx of anticyclonic vorticity advection into the blocking region by an amplifying synoptic-scale wave, however a few studies (e.g., Tsou and Smith, 1990; Alberta et al., 1991; Lupo 1997) suggested a role for temperature advections as well. The dynamic forcing mechanisms that contribute to the growth and maintenance of blocking events have also been partitioned into synoptic, planetary-scale, and scale interaction processes in several studies as well (e.g., Tsou and Smith, 1990; Tracton, 1990; Marques and Rao, 1999; Colucci, 2001). Then, studies have demonstrated that the importance of synoptic and planetary-scale forcing was different for the growth and maintenance of north Atlantic and north Pacific blocking events (e.g., Nakamura et al., 1997; Colucci, 2001). Nakamura et al. (1997) found that north Atlantic blocking events are primarily dependent on planetary-scale processes while north Pacific events are more dependent on synoptic-scale fluxes of potential vorticity (PV) for growth and maintenance. Lupo and Smith (1995b) (hereafter LS95b) and Colucci (2001) found that north Atlantic blocking events were also dependent on interactions between synoptic and planetary-scale processes. Lupo (1997) also demonstrated the importance of synoptic-scale processes relative to the planetary-scale component in the north Pacific region. Recently, Burkhardt and Lupo (2005) demonstrate that __________________________________________________ *Corresponding author address: Anthony R. Lupo, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences, 302 E Anheuser Busch Natural Resources Building, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211. Email: LupoA@missouri.edu. in the SH, the synoptic-scale was crucially important to the growth, intensification, and maintenance of two southeast Pacific blocking events. They show, however, that there is a strong negative correlation between the synoptic-scale and scale interaction components. They speculate that this may indicate that in the SH, the wave-wave interactions between the planetary and synoptic-scales may not be mutually beneficial (non-linear), and thus, this may explain why blocking events there are weaker, less persistent, and less frequently than NH events. In the NH, the synoptic-scale and scale interaction terms are frequently of the same sign. The objective of this study was to examine another SH blocking case study in order to provide additional case study evidence in support of Burkhardt and Lupo (2005). The blocking event chosen for study here occurred in the south Pacific during July 2001.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue34th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology/21st Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/17th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→