MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964996313 · doi:10.1175/bams-d-18-0299.1

Nocturnal Convection Initiation during PECAN 2015

2019· article· en· W2964996313 on OpenAlexaff
Tammy M. Weckwerth, John Hanesiak, James W. Wilson, Stanley B. Trier, Samuel K. Degelia, William A. Gallus, Rita D. Roberts, Xuguang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeather Research and Forecasting ModelNocturnalMesoscale meteorologyConvectionClimatologyEnvironmental scienceForcing (mathematics)Mesoscale convective systemMeteorologyEnsemble forecastingAtmospheric sciencesGeographyGeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nocturnal convection initiation (NCI) is more difficult to anticipate and forecast than daytime convection initiation (CI). A major component of the Plains Elevated Convection at Night (PECAN) field campaign in the U.S. Great Plains was to intensively sample NCI and its near environment. In this article, we summarize NCI types observed during PECAN: 1 June–16 July 2015. These NCI types, classified using PECAN radar composites, are associated with 1) frontal overrunning, 2) the low-level jet (LLJ), 3) a preexisting mesoscale convective system (MCS), 4) a bore or density current, and 5) a nocturnal atmosphere lacking a clearly observed forcing mechanism (pristine). An example and description of each of these different types of PECAN NCI events are presented. The University of Oklahoma real-time 4-km Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model ensemble forecast runs illustrate that the above categories having larger-scale organization (e.g., NCI associated with frontal overrunning and NCI near a preexisting MCS) were better forecasted than pristine. Based on current knowledge and data from PECAN, conceptual models summarizing key environmental features are presented and physical processes underlying the development of each of these different types of NCI events are discussed.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations48
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207