MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A probability model of three potential precursors during tornado occurrences: the Italian case.

2020· article· en· W3096470582 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Ingrosso, Piero Lionello, Mario Marcello Miglietta, Gianfausto Salvadori

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTornadoConditional probabilityHomogeneity (statistics)MeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsEnvironmental scienceGeographyClimatologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

57 tornadoes with intensity Enhanced Fujita Scale 2 or larger that occurred in Italy in the period 2000–2018 are analysed in order to investigate the way two meteorological parameters, namely Wind Shear, calculated in 0-1 km and 0-6 km layers, and CAPE, affect their development. For this purpose, a statistical analysis, by means of homogeneity tests, conditional probabilities and a multivariate analysis via copulas is performed, using two different re-analysis datasets (ERA-Interim and ERA-5). The study indicates that: (a) tornadoes occur mostly in correspondence with positive anomalies of both variables; (b) probability of occurrence is correlated with WS, and (c) is maximum when either WS or CAPE are large. Also, the probability does not increase significantly with CAPE, although sufficiently large values are needed for tornado occurrence. These results are similar for both re-analyses we used and suggest that the selected parameters are reliable precursors for Italian tornadoes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.130 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations→French-language works237,207→