MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553167186 · doi:10.1029/2010jf001822

Laboratory and field performance of a laser particle counter for measuring aeolian sand transport

2011· article· en· W1553167186 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaturation (graph theory)FlumeEnvironmental scienceParticle counterSoil scienceMaterials scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringRemote sensingPhysicsMeteorologyMechanicsAerosol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] This paper reports the results of laboratory and field tests that evaluate the performance of a new laser particle counter for measuring aeolian sand transport. The Wenglor® model YH03PCT8 (“Wenglor”) consists of a laser (655 nm), photo sensor, and switching circuit. When a particle passes through the 0.6 mm diameter, 30 mm long laser beam, the sensor outputs a digital signal. Laboratory tests with medium sand and a vertical gravity flume show that the Wenglor count rate scales approximately linearly with mass flux up to the saturation point of the sensor, after which the count rate decreases despite increasing mass flux. Saturation depends on the diameter and concentration of particles in the airstream and may occur during extreme events in the field. Below saturation sensor performance is relatively consistent; the mean difference between average count rate response was between 50 and 100 counts. Field tests provide a complimentary frame of reference for evaluating the performance of the Wenglor under varying environmental conditions and to gauge its performance with respect to a collocated piezoelectric impact sensor (Sensit H11-B). During 136.5 h of deployment on an active sand dune the relative proportion of time sand transport recorded by two Wenglors was 0.09% and 0.79%, compared to 4.68% by the Sensit H11-B. The weak performance of the Wenglors is attributed to persistent lens contamination from adhesion of sand grains on the sensors after rainfall. However, during dry and windy conditions the Wenglor performance improved substantially; sensors measured a concentration of sand particles in the airstream more than seven times greater than that measured by the Sensit. Between the two Wenglors, the mean absolute count rate difference was 6.16 counts per second, with a standard deviation of 8.53 counts per second. For short-term measurement campaigns in dry conditions, therefore, the Wenglor is relatively consistent and can outperform the Sensit in detecting particles in the airstream. The Sensit, however, is more reliable in detecting particle transport during longer unattended deployments. Two additional field tests show that the sensor is well-suited to the measurement of snow drifting but could be ineffective in dusty settings because of lens contamination. Overall, the main advantages of the Wenglor include (1) insensitivity to particle momentum; (2) low measurement variability; (3) low cost ($210 USD); and perhaps most important of all, (4) a consistent design that will improve comparison of results between investigations. At present, no other particle detector used in aeolian research can claim all these characteristics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.229 · 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