Estimating Wind Speeds in Tornadoes Using Debris Trajectories of Large Compact Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently, the enhanced Fujita scale does not consider the wind-induced movement of various large compact objects such as vehicles, construction equipment, and farming equipment/haybales that are often found in postevent damage surveys. One reason for this is that modeling debris in tornadoes comes with considerable uncertainties since there are many parameters to determine, leading to difficulties in using trajectories to analyze wind speeds of tornadoes. This paper aims to develop a forensic tool using analytical tornado models to estimate lofting wind speeds based on trajectories of large compact objects. This is accomplished by implementing a Monte Carlo simulation to randomly select the parameters and plotting cumulative distribution functions showing the likelihood of lofting at each wind speed. After analyzing the debris lofting from several documented tornadoes in Canada, the results indicate that the method provides threshold lofting wind speeds that are similar to the estimated speeds given by other methods. However, the introduction of trajectories produces estimated lofting wind speeds that are higher than the EF-scale rating given from the ground survey assessment based on structural damage. Further studies will be required to better understand these differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".