High-Temporal Resolution Observations of the 27 May 2015 Canadian, Texas, Tornado Using the Atmospheric Imaging Radar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On 27 May 2015, the Atmospheric Imaging Radar (AIR) collected high-temporal resolution radar observations of an EF-2 tornado near Canadian, Texas. The AIR is a mobile, X-band, imaging radar that uses digital beamforming to collect simultaneous RHI scans while steering mechanically in azimuth to obtain rapid-update weather data. During this deployment, 20°-by-80° (elevation × azimuth) sector volumes were collected every 5.5 s at ranges as close as 6 km. The AIR captured the late-mature and decaying stages of the tornado. Early in the deployment, the tornado had a radius of maximum winds (RMW) of 500 m and exhibited maximum Doppler velocities near 65 m s−1. This study documents the rapid changes associated with the dissipation stages of the tornado. A 10-s resolution time–height investigation of vortex tilt and differential velocity is presented and illustrates an instance of upward vortex intensification as well as downward tornado decay. Changes in tornado intensity over periods of less than 30 s coincided with rapid changes in tornado diameter. At least two small-scale vortices were observed being shed from the tornado during a brief weakening period. A persistent layer of vortex tilt was observed near the level of free convection, which separated two layers with contrasting modes of tornado decay. Finally, the vertical cross correlation of vortex intensity reveals that apart from the brief instances of upward vortex intensification and downward decay, tornado intensity was highly correlated throughout the observation period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".