ERA5‐Based Significant Tornado Environments in Canada Between 1980 and 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study uses ERA5 close‐proximity soundings and associated convective parameters to characterize significant tornadic storm (F/EF2+) environments between 1980 and 2020 in parts of Canada. It is shown that ERA5 convective parameters are suitable to represent observed parameters, based on radiosonde comparisons. Results indicate that the eastern Canadian Prairies have nearly double the lifted condensation level with higher level of free convection compared to eastern Canada (southern Ontario/Quebec). Eastern Canada has more a humid boundary layer and free troposphere that can lead to warmer cold pools, favoring tornadogenesis. Central Canada (Manitoba) has the largest mixed‐layer (ML) convective available potential energy (CAPE) mainly due to a combination of regional differences in low level moisture and steeper mid‐level lapse rates in western Canada. Central continental U.S. and Canadian regions appear to have the highest (most negative) convective inhibition, leading to more explosive initiation. Mean bulk wind shear and storm relative helicity (SRH) increases from west to east, with eastern regions being significantly larger. The supercell composite and significant tornado parameters are generally less than U.S. magnitudes, particularly in western Canada, and would require recalibration for more practical use in Canada. Overall, western Canada significant tornadic storms are associated with more low‐level looping hodographs and dominated by thermodynamic influences compared to larger wind influences in eastern regions. This is likely due to more spring, late summer, and autumn events that typically have well‐developed synoptic systems (stronger wind shear) with overall less buoyant energy in eastern regions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".