Evaluation of a Limited-area Energy Budget Cycle of an Extratropical Storm Under Lagrangian and Eulerian Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To conceptualize the uncertainties regarding the mechanisms of extratropical cyclones (EC), a study of their energy cycle can provide key information of their fundamental structure. This study applies a set of equations built from earlier works for a limited-area energy decomposed into temporal mean and deviations. It compares the results obtained with a reference frame that tracks an EC through its eddy kinetic energy with those obtained with a larger but fixed frame. A specific storm that occurred throughout the period of December 10-18th 2004 and simulated by the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM – version 5) was studied. Results support the notion that the moving reference results in larger amplitudes for all temporal deviation components of the cycle than for the fixed reference. A time tendency analysis of the energetic reservoirs reveals noteworthy phases in the storm’s energy, with an increase and decrease occurring during the periods of 10-14 December and 14-18 December, respectively. The energy budget is overall fairly well balanced, with the exception of a lateral boundary term, hkTV , with considerable negative values; this term exhibits a spatially larger scale than the other contributions in the EC. An evaluation of the sensibility of the tracking scheme related to its size and positioning was also performed to determine its influence on the boundary term hkTV.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".