Retrieval of Peak Thunderstorm Wind Velocities Using WSR-88D Weather Radars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study develops a variant of the VAD method to retrieve thunderstorm peak event velocities using low-elevation WSR-88D radar scans. The main challenge pertains to the localized nature of thunderstorm winds, which complicates single-Doppler retrievals as it dictates the use of a limited spatial scale. Since VAD methods assume constant velocity in the fitted section, it is important that retrieved sections do not contain background flow. Accordingly, the current study proposes an image processing method to partition scans into regions, representing events and the background flows, that can be retrieved independently. The study compares the retrieved peak velocities to retrievals using another VAD method. The proposed technique is found to estimate peak event velocities that are closer to measured ASOS readings, making it more suitable for historical analysis. The study also compares the results of retrievals from over 2600 thunderstorm events from 19 radar–ASOS station combinations that are less than 10 km away from the radar. Comparisons of probability distributions of peak event velocities for ASOS readings and radar retrievals showed good agreement for stations within 4 km from the radar while more distant stations had a higher bias toward retrieved velocities compared to ASOS velocities. The mean absolute error for velocity magnitude increases with height ranging between 1.5 and 4.5 m s−1. A proposed correction based on the exponential trend of mean errors was shown to improve the probability distribution comparisons, especially for higher velocity magnitudes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".