MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416417870 · doi:10.1016/j.wace.2025.100834

Estimating tornado occurrence and tornado wind hazard in China

2025· article· en· W4416417870 on OpenAlexaff
Yifei Liu, Y. Zhang, Han Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Climate Extremes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTornadoWind speedHazardNatural hazardReturn periodHazard analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tornadoes can potentially damage structures and cause fatalities. Although tornado occurrence is often observed in China’s mainland, a systematic development of a comprehensive catalogue that forms the basis for tornado hazard assessment and mapping was not available. In the present study, a tornado catalogue from 1949 to 2023 over China’s mainland was compiled based on extensive literature research. This catalogue was used as the basis to map the spatially varying tornado occurrence rate and to develop a stochastic tornado occurrence model. For the mapping of the spatially varying tornado occurrence, the adaptive Gaussian kernel smoothing and the adaptive diffusion smoothing were employed. The newly developed stochastic occurrence model together with an adopted practical tornado wind field model were used to map the tornado hazards over China’s mainland in terms of the annual maximum tornado wind speed for given exceedance probabilities. The hazard was assessed for a site represented by a point as well as for a circular area, showing that the hazard is not negligible, and the hazard increases drastically as the size of the circular area increases. This implied that tornado hazard can be significant for a portfolio of structures within a relatively large circular area. The mapped hazard indicated that the hazard is not negligible for nuclear structures by considering the annual exceedance probability of 10 -7 , which is stipulated in the design code. The estimated tornado wind hazard was compared with that estimated based on a code-suggested procedure, which was developed and implemented in the 1970s and 1980s. The comparison indicated that the code procedure, in general, leads to a much greater tornado wind speed hazard. Some of the assumptions that resulted in the overestimation were identified. In addition, two new sets of empirical equations for the tornado path length, width and area were developed. The first set can be used for tornadoes with the F-scale rating and the second set for tornadoes with the EF-scale rating.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeather and Climate ExtremesSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207