MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945551893 · doi:10.1029/2019gl082925

Relationship Between the Pacific‐North American Pattern and the Frequency of Tropical Cyclones Over the Western North Pacific

2019· article· en· W2945551893 on OpenAlexaff
Philip J. Klotzbach

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsTropical cycloneWind shearClimatologyOceanographySubtropicsGeologyGeographyWind speedBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The frequency of tropical cyclones (TCs) over the western North Pacific during June–November has a significant inverse correlation with the concurrent Pacific‐North American (PNA) pattern from 1965 to 2016. During low PNA years, more TCs form north of 12.5°N, with significantly greater TC occurrences from 15 to 20°N, compared to high PNA years. The difference in TC genesis location can be explained by the differences in the genesis potential index derived from the environmental variables in both PNA phases. The PNA influences TC formation primarily by modulating large‐scale dynamic conditions, with thermodynamic conditions playing a lesser role. In low PNA years, low‐level anomalous cyclonic lows over the Philippines and in the subtropical central Pacific provide significant positive relative vorticity anomalies favorable for TC genesis. Additionally, there is also less vertical wind shear to the north of the Philippines due to enhanced winds at low levels and weaker winds at upper levels.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207