MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388131012 · doi:10.1175/jas-d-23-0089.1

Observations of Boundary Layer Convergence Lines and Associated Updrafts in the U.S. Southern Great Plains

2023· article· en· W4388131012 on OpenAlexaff
Shanhe Liu, Kapil Dev Sindhu, Daniel J. Kirshbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsConvective Boundary LayerRadarPlanetary boundary layerBoundary layerMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceConvectionGeologyTurbulencePhysicsMechanicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Boundary layer convergence lines (CLs) are highly effective at deep-convection initiation (DCI), suggesting that their associated updraft properties differ from those of more widespread turbulent updrafts in the planetary boundary layer (PBL). This study exploits observations at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains (ARM SGP) observatory in Oklahoma from 2011 to 2016 to quantify CL properties and their relation to turbulent PBL eddies preceding CL arrival. Two independent methods for estimating CL properties are developed at two locations in the SGP region, both relying on the assumption of a 2D circulation in the CL-normal plane but using different combinations of instruments. The first (the radar method) relies mainly on scanning radar data and is applied to 61 CLs passing near a high-resolution scanning radar based in Nardin, Oklahoma, while the second (the surface method) relies mainly on surface wind data and is applied to 68 CLs crossing the SGP facility in nearby Lamont, Oklahoma. Mean daytime (1000–1900 LST) CL width (∼2 km) and convergence magnitude (∼0.003 s−1) are similar for both methods, and mean daytime CL depth is ∼0.75 km. The two methods disagree at night (0000–1000 and 1900–2400 LST), where the surface method estimates wider and weaker CLs than the radar method. This difference may stem from the radar beam overshooting the shallow, highly stable nocturnal PBL. The largest CL updrafts are slightly wider (∼20%) and stronger (∼40%) than the largest PBL updrafts in the pre-CL period, generating 50%–100% larger updraft mass fluxes over most of the PBL depth. Significance Statement Deep convection is commonly initiated by boundary layer convergence lines (CLs), which are associated with intense surface-based wind convergence and strong updrafts that may lift air to saturation. Although CLs form regularly, they are far less common than ordinary, short-lived turbulent thermals in the daytime boundary layer. To better understand why CLs are so effective at deep-convection initiation, we observationally quantify their morphologies and strengths and compare these properties to those of surrounding turbulent updrafts. Perhaps surprisingly, the CLs are found to exhibit only slightly larger scales and strengths as the turbulent updrafts. Although these marginal increases help to explain the preference for storms to initiate along CLs, they likely are not the whole story.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207