The Evolution and Role of Midtropospheric Cyclonic Vortex in the Formation of Super Typhoon Nepartak (2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on a successful cloud‐resolving simulation with the Weather Research and Forecasting Model, this study examines the evolution and the role of midtropospheric mesoscale cyclonic vortex in the formation of Super Typhoon Nepartak (2016). The midtropospheric vortex is correlated with the convective activity in pre‐Nepartak. Once the deep convection outbreaks, the midtropospheric vortex intensifies first via the vertical advection associated with the severe updrafts and then through the midlevel convergence associated with stratiform precipitation. As the stratiform precipitation dissipates, the midlevel vortex weakens slightly in the following shallow convection phase. The above‐described processes recur sequentially during the pregenesis of Nepartak, and the midtropospheric vortex demonstrates diurnal variations. Its intensification usually corresponds to the weakening of low‐level cyclonic circulation except for the deep convection phase, indicating that the development of midtropospheric vortex can inhibit the development of self‐sustained low‐level cyclonic circulation. Although the midtropospheric vortex is not always a quasi‐balanced perturbation, a cold core can be found in the lower troposphere below it during the most of the pregenesis stage. The appearance of the cold core enhances the low‐level temperature gradient around it, which favors convection burst. In addition, the closed cyclonic circulation associated with the midlevel vortex can serve as a pouch protecting the vorticity, moisture, and convection inside from the vertical wind shear and dry air intrusion when the low‐level and midlevel vortices are overlapped in the late pregenesis stage, which facilitates the sustained deep convection and the formation of Nepartak.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".