MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225287094 · doi:10.3390/rs14092158

Aircraft and Satellite Observations of Vortex Evolution and Surface Wind Asymmetry of Concentric Eyewalls in Hurricane Irma

2022· article· en· W4225287094 on OpenAlexafffund
Han Hua, Biao Zhang, Guosheng Zhang, William Perrie, Changlin Chen, Yuanben Li

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones Research
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyCanadian Space AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsEyeGeologyMaximum sustained windTropical cycloneAtmosphere (unit)Sea surface temperatureClimatologyEnvironmental scienceInner coreVortexMeteorologyWind speedAtmospheric sciencesWind shearGeophysicsPhysicsOceanographyWind gradient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare the vortex evolutions of eyewall replacement cycles (ERCs) between the sea-surface and the free-atmosphere levels and investigate the asymmetric structure of concentric eyewalls (CEs) by examining a combination of aircraft observations and surface wind fields derived from C-band spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images during Hurricane Irma (2017) from 4 September 2017 to 8 September 2017. A total of 116 radial wind profiles measured by an aircraft were collected and showed that ERCs occur at both the sea-surface and the free-atmosphere levels. The outer eyewall was shown to form at the free atmospheric level (~3 km) with a narrow structure at the sea-surface level and an outward tilt with height in the cross-section. In our study, four ERC events were determined from wind profile parameters fitted by a modified Rankine vortex model, which was validated by 328 radial legs collected from six hurricanes. The outer eyewall did not replace the inner eyewall at the sea-surface level in the third ERC, due to the maintenance of a short duration and intense original eyewall. Additionally, Irma’s intensity weakened during the fourth ERC rather than re-intensified, because of the generation of a third wind maximum outside the secondary eyewall. Comparisons of five SAR-derived surface wind fields in Irma and another two hurricane cases illustrated that the location of the secondary eyewall generation is a key point in the interpretation of anomaly intensity changes in the fourth ERC.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicTropical and Extratropical Cyclones ResearchFrench-language works237,207