Charlton-Perez A, Polvani L. 2009. A new look at stratospheric sudden warmings. Part III: Polar vortex evolution and vertical structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of the Arctic polar vortex during observed major midwinter stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs) is investigated for the period 1957–2002, using 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) Ertel’s potential vorticity (PV) and temperature fields. Time-lag composites of vertically weighted PV, calculated relative to the SSW onset time, are derived for both vortex-displacement SSWs and vortex-splitting SSWs, by averaging over the 15 recorded displacement and 13 splitting events. The evolving vertical structure of the polar vortex during a typical SSW of each type is clearly illustrated by plotting an isosurface of the composite PV field, and is shown to be very close to that observed during representative individual events. Results are verified by comparison with an elliptical diagnostic vortex moment technique. For both types of SSW, little variation is found between individual events in the orientation of the developing vortex relative to the underlying topography; that is, the location of the vortex during SSWs of each type is largely fixed in relation to the earth’s surface. During each type of SSW, the vortex is found to have a distinctive vertical structure. Vortex-splitting events are typically barotropic, with the vortex split occurring near simultaneously over a large altitude range (20–40 km). In the majority of cases, of the two daughter vortices formed, it is the ‘‘Siberian’ ’ vortex that dominates over its ‘‘Canadian’ ’ counterpart. In contrast, displacement events are characterized by a very clear baroclinic structure; the vortex tilts signifi-cantly westward with height, so that the top and bottom of the vortex are separated by nearly 1808 longitude before the upper vortex is sheared away and destroyed. 1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".