Theoretical study of mixing in liquid clouds – Part 1: Classical concepts
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. The present study considers final stages of in-cloud mixing in the framework of classical concept of homogeneous and extreme inhomogeneous mixing. Simple analytical relationships between basic microphysical parameters were obtained for homogeneous and extreme inhomogeneous mixing based on the adiabatic consideration. It was demonstrated that during homogeneous mixing the functional relationships between the moments of the droplets size distribution hold only during the primary stage of mixing. Subsequent random mixing between already mixed parcels and undiluted cloud parcels breaks these relationships. However, during extreme inhomogeneous mixing the functional relationships between the microphysical parameters hold both for primary and subsequent mixing. The obtained relationships can be used to identify the type of mixing from in situ observations. The effectiveness of the developed method was demonstrated using in situ data collected in convective clouds. It was found that for the specific set of in situ measurements the interaction between cloudy and entrained environments was dominated by extreme inhomogeneous mixing.
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 | 0.000 | 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