Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Tropopause polar vortices (TPVs) are closed circulations centered on the tropopause that form and predominately reside in high latitudes. Due to their attendant flow, TPVs have been shown to influence surface weather features, and thus, a greater understanding of the dynamics of these features may improve our ability to forecast impactful weather events. In this study, we focus on the subset of TPVs that have lifetimes of longer than 2 weeks (the 95th percentile of all TPV cases between 1979 and 2018); these long-lived vortices offer a unique opportunity to study the conditions under which TPVs strengthen and analyze patterns of vortex formation and movement. Using ERA-Interim data, along with TPV tracks derived from the same reanalysis, we investigate the formation, motion, and development of these long-lived vortices. We find that these TPVs are significantly stronger, occur more often in the summer, and tend to remain more poleward than an average TPV. Similarly, these TPVs are shown to form at higher latitudes than average. Long-lived TPVs form predominately by splitting from existing vortices, but a notable minority seem to generate via dynamic processes in the absence of pre-existing TPVs. These non-likely split genesis events are found to occur in select geographic regions, driven by Rossby wave growth and breaking. Seasonal variations emerge in the life cycles of long-lived vortices; notably, winter TPVs progress more equatorward and generally grow to stronger amplitudes. These long-lived TPVs also appear as likely as any TPV to exit the Arctic and move into the mid-latitudes, doing so via two primary pathways: through Canada or Siberia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.204 | 0.139 |
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".