MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902074569 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-18-0131.1

A New Perspective toward Cataloging Northern Hemisphere Rossby Wave Breaking on the Dynamic Tropopause

2018· article· en· W2902074569 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin A. Bowley, John R. Gyakum, Eyad H. Atallah

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTropopauseClimatologyRossby waveTroposphereEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesBaroclinityAnticycloneGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rossby wave breaking (RWB) events are a common feature on the dynamic tropopause and act to modulate synoptic-scale jet dynamics. These events are characterized on the dynamic tropopause by an irreversible overturning of isentropes and are coupled to troposphere-deep vertical motions and geopotential height anomalies. Prior climatologies have focused on the poleward streamer, the equatorward streamer, or the reversal in potential temperature gradient between the streamers, resulting in differences in the frequencies of RWB. Here, a new approach toward cataloging these events that captures both streamers is applied to the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Reanalysis-2 dataset for 1979–2011. Anticyclonic RWB (AWB) events are found to be nearly twice as frequent as cyclonic RWB (CWB) events. Seasonal decompositions of the annual mean find AWB to be most common in summer (40% occurrence), which is likely due to the Asian monsoon, while CWB is most frequent in winter (22.5%) and is likely due to the equatorward shift in mean baroclinicity. Trends in RWB from 1980 to 2010 illustrate a westward shift in North Pacific AWB during winter and summer (up to 0.4% yr−1), while CWB in the North Pacific increases in winter and spring (up to 0.2% yr−1). These changes are hypothesized to be associated with localized changes in the two-way interaction between the jet and RWB. The interannual variability of AWB and CWB is also explored, and a notable modality to the frequency of RWB is found that may be attributable to known low-frequency modes of variability including the Arctic Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Pacific–North American pattern.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207