MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396883668 · doi:10.1080/23754931.2024.2348597

Revisiting tornado watch #211 - a spatial analysis of the May 31, 1985 tornadoes using present-day data for the state of Pennsylvania

2024· article· en· W4396883668 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy J. Dolney

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers in Applied Geography · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTornadoGeographyCensusPopulationOutbreakMeteorologyEveningHistoryDemographyCartographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the evening of 31 May 1985, a devastating and deadly tornado outbreak impacted Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ontario, Canada. A total of 41 tornadoes occurred resulting in 88 fatalities: the deadliest tornado outbreak of the 1980s. Pennsylvania experienced the greatest number of tornadoes with 21 affecting the Commonwealth, causing 65 fatalities. Despite its severity, Pennsylvania’s deadliest tornado outbreak has not been spatially analyzed in academic literature. With the outbreak occurring nearly 40 years ago, one must consider the potential impacts today in comparison to the 1985 time-period. Has the natural and built landscape changed to the extent that the population would be further impacted both directly and indirectly? To assist in answering this question, this study performs a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of Pennsylvania’s historical and present-day land cover, census, and building data in locations impacted by the 1985 tornadoes. Data between the two time periods is compared and analyzed to quantify changes since 1985 to estimate if the impacts would be lesser or greater in relation to the expanding bull’s eye effect. This includes estimating the number of fatalities that would occur in the present-day.

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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers in Applied GeographySame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207