MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034128997 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-19-0316.1

Characterizing Thunderstorm Gust Fronts near Complex Terrain

2020· article· en· W3034128997 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas T. Luchetti, Katja Friedrich, Christopher Rodell, Julie K. Lundquist

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryOffice of Energy EfficiencyU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementWind Energy Technologies OfficeOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyJoint Fire Science ProgramU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsThunderstormTerrainMeteorologyStormAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceTurbulence kinetic energyGeologyWind shearWind directionWind speedTurbulenceClimatologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Fire safety, aviation, wind energy, and structural-engineering operations are impacted by thunderstorm outflow boundaries or gust fronts (GFs) particularly when they occur in mountainous terrain. For example, during the 2013 Arizona Yarnell Hill Fire, 19 firefighters were killed as a result of sudden changes in fire behavior triggered by a passing GF. Knowledge of GF behavior in complex terrain also determines departure and landing operations at nearby airports, and GFs can induce exceptional structural loads on wind turbines. While most examinations of GF characteristics focus on well-organized convection in areas such as the Great Plains, here the investigation is broadened to explore GF characteristics that evolve near the complex terrain of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Using in situ observations from meteorological towers, as well as data from wind-profiling lidars and a microwave radiometer, 24 GF events are assessed to quantify changes in wind, temperature, humidity, and turbulence in the lowest 300 m AGL as these GFs passed over the instruments. The changes in magnitude for all variables are on average weaker in the Colorado Front Range than those typically observed from organized, severe storms in flatter regions. Most events from this study experience an increase in wind speed from 1 to 8 m s −1 , relative humidity from 1% to 8%, and weak vertical motion from 0.3 to 3.6 m s −1 during GF passage while temperature drops by 0.2°–3°C and turbulent kinetic energy peaks at >4 m 2 s −2 . Vertical profiles reveal that these changes vary little with height in the lowest 300 m.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.009

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 head0.240
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207