An Improved Trajectory Model to Evaluate the Collection Performance of Snow Gauges
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies have used numerical models to estimate the collection efficiency of solid precipitation gauges when exposed to the wind in both shielded and unshielded configurations. The models used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of the airflow pattern generated by the aerodynamic response to the gauge–shield geometry. These are used as initial conditions to perform Lagrangian tracking of solid precipitation particles. Validation of the results against field observations yielded similarities in the overall behavior, but the model output only approximately reproduced the dependence of the experimental collection efficiency on wind speed. This paper presents an improved snowflake trajectory modeling scheme due to the inclusion of a dynamically determined drag coefficient. The drag coefficient was estimated using the local Reynolds number as derived from CFD simulations within a time-independent Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes approach. The proposed dynamic model greatly improves the consistency of results with the field observations recently obtained at the Marshall Field winter precipitation test bed in Boulder, Colorado.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it