The Shear‐Relative Variation of Inflow Angle and Its Relationship to Tropical Cyclone Intensification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Characterizing inflow structure is important to better represent tropical cyclone impacts in numerical models. While much research has considered the impact of storm translation on the distribution of inflow angle, comparatively less research has examined its distribution relative to the environmental wind shear. This study analyzes data from 3,655 dropsondes in 44 storms to investigate the radial and shear‐relative distribution of surface inflow angle. Emphasis is placed on its relationship with intensity change. The results show that the radial variation in the inflow angle is small and not significantly dependent on the shear magnitude or intensity change rate. In contrast, the azimuthal distribution of the inflow angle shows a significant asymmetry, with the amplitude of the asymmetry increasing with shear magnitude. The maximum inflow angle is located in the downshear side. The degree of asymmetry is larger in the outer core than in the eyewall. Intensifying storms have a smaller degree of asymmetry than steady‐state storms under moderate shear.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".