MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999202993 · doi:10.1504/ijep.2010.030898

Inter-comparison of the AUSTAL2000 and CALPUFF dispersion models against the Kincaid data set

2010· article· en· W1999202993 on OpenAlexaff
Ka Hing Yau, Robert W. Macdonald suffix, Jesse L. The

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environment and Pollution · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsPhilips (Canada)University of WaterlooTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispersion (optics)QuartileAtmospheric dispersion modelingEnvironmental scienceResidualStack (abstract data type)Atmospheric sciencesMeteorologyStatisticsAir pollutionMathematicsGeographyChemistryPhysicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulatory air dispersion models AUSTAL2000 and CALPUFF are validated by comparing the predicted Ground Level Concentrations (GLC) with the measured dataset resulting from the dispersion of an elevated, buoyant plume release in the Kincaid power plant experiment. Standard statistical measures of the model results are inter-compared. Their performance is scrutinised using scattered, quartile-quartile, and residual plots. The predicted GLC of AUSTAL is twice of Kincaid under turbulent conditions, being less accurate than CALPUFF. The performance of AUSTAL is more consistent with respect to varying atmospheric parameters and distance from stack. The stochastic variability of AUSTAL is also examined.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environment and PollutionSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207