MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770241145 · doi:10.1002/asl.795

Tornado identification and forewarning with very high frequency windprofiler radars

2017· article· en· W2770241145 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. Hocking, W. K. Hocking

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric Science Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWestern UniversityDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTornadoSupercellFujita scaleTropopauseRadarEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyDepth soundingTroposphereClear-air turbulenceStratosphereRemote sensingAtmospheric sciencesTurbulenceGeologyGeographyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of very high frequency (VHF) (~50 MHz) windprofilers to measure backscatter, winds and turbulence in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere gives them a unique perspective not available with many other remote sounding radar techniques. This capability has been utilized to study the environment of 31 tornadoes generated in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in Canada over an 11‐year period. Tornadoes were mostly of Enhanced Fujita (EF) types EF0 to EF2, with one being EF3. Focus is on events which produced visible damage. Signals detected show characteristics demonstrating new informative—and potentially predictive—capabilities. A large enhancement in backscattered power immediately above the common volume of the radar and the tornadic supercell, reaching to the tropopause and beyond, when coupled with radar measurements of strong turbulence and wind speeds, provides good radar evidence of tornadic activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric Science LettersSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207