An Australian convective wind gust climatology using Bayesian hierarchical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To quantify the hazard or risks associated with severe convective wind gusts, it is necessary to have a reliable and spatially complete climatology of these events. The coupling of observational and global reanalysis (ERA-Interim) data over the period 2005-2015 is used here to facilitate the development of a spatially complete convective wind gust climatology for Australia. This is done through the development of Bayesian Hierarchical models that use both weather station-based wind gust observations and seasonally averaged severe weather indices (SWI), calculated using reanalysis data, to estimate seasonal gust frequencies across the country while correcting for observational biases specifically, the sparse observational network to record events. Different SWI combinations were found to explain event counts for different seasons. For example, combinations of Lifted Index and low level wind shear were found to generate the best results for autumn and winter. While for spring and summer, the composite Microburst Index and the combination of most unstable CAPE and 0-1 km wind shear were found to be most successful. Results from these models showed a minimum in event counts during the winter months, with events that do occur mainly doing so along the southwest coast of Western Australia or along the coasts of Tasmania and Victoria. Summer is shown to have the largest event counts across the country, with the largest number of gusts occurring in northern Western Australia extending east into the Northern Territory with another maximum over northeast New South Wales. Similar trends were found with an extended application of the models to the period 1979-2015 when utilizing only reanalysis data as input. This implementation of the models highlights the versatility of the Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach and its ability, when trained, to be used in the absence of observations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".