MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307139954 · doi:10.1029/2022gl100835

The Role of Wave Breaking in the Development and Subseasonal Forecasts of the February 2021 Great Plains Cold Air Outbreak

2022· article· en· W4307139954 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oliver T. Millin, Jason C. Furtado

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPredictabilityClimatologyAnticycloneEnvironmental scienceCold waveRange (aeronautics)MeteorologyForecast skillOutbreakExtreme ColdEvent (particle physics)GeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The February 2021 cold air outbreak (CAO) was a high‐impact event in the South‐Central Plains of the United States. This study examines important precursors to the event that likely impacted its predictability in subseasonal forecasts. We use reanalysis to show that the CAO was facilitated by two distinct wave breaks—an East Siberian Sea anticyclonic wave break and a Labrador Sea cyclonic wave break. We also use European Center for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts and National Center for Environmental Prediction subseasonal‐to‐seasonal models to investigate the impact of the wave breaks on the forecast skill of the event at a ∼2–3 weeks lead time. Ensemble members successfully simulating these features produce more negative temperature anomalies across the Great Plains, corresponding to better positioning of anomalous ridging. These results demonstrate that successfully simulating persistent anticyclones can improve central US extreme cold forecasts at long leads.

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)0.002
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→