Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the impracticality of attempting to directly measure wind speeds in tornadoes, wind speed estimation typically relies on the assessment of damage to structures and vegetation using classifications described in the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale.The advent of technology enabling the collection of large amounts of data, including detailed ground, drone, and aerial imagery, has led to a growth in research on non-conventional approaches for estimating tornado wind speeds.Research methods focused on defining the tornadic wind field based on forensic analysis of damage observations have shown promise for improving tornado assessments in a quantitative manner.In this study, novel methods for collecting forensic data following tornadoes are presented.Data from the Alonsa, MB tornado are applied to estimating the wind field along the damage path using treefall pattern analysis and threshold debris flight speed calculations.Comparison of the resulting wind speed estimates show reasonable agreement, with maximum speeds from both methods in the EF5 range.These research methods yield higher wind speeds than the maximum value obtained from the conventional EF-Scale assessment, which is in the low-end of the EF4 range based on a wood-frame house with sub-standard construction that was swept entirely from its foundation.Further work is still needed to make these methods operational for routine tornado intensity estimates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".