MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026524374 · doi:10.1175/2007jas2307.1

Predictability in Wet and Dry Convective Turbulence

2008· article· en· W2026524374 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle Spyksma, Peter Bartello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsPredictabilityConvectionForcing (mathematics)Environmental scienceTurbulenceConvective inhibitionTurbulence kinetic energyMoistureDiffusionConvective available potential energyAtmospheric sciencesAmplitudeMechanicsClimatologyMeteorologyPhysicsThermodynamicsGeologyNatural convectionCombined forced and natural convection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a growing interest in understanding the role that moisture plays in atmospheric dynamics, particularly in its effect on predictability. Current research indicates that when moisture effects are added to an atmospheric model, the error growth produced by the new moist dynamics reduces the predictability times, especially at the scales of moist convection. The issue of moist convection’s effect on predictability is addressed herein. By performing high-resolution large-ensemble runs, it is shown that although nonprecipitating moist convection is less predictable than dry convection resulting from the same forcing, this effect can be explained by the energy injected into the system through the latent heating and cooling arising from the convective motion. This extra energy is spread evenly over most scales of the convective dynamics. When the predictability times are scaled to account for the extra kinetic energy, and the resulting earlier growth of error energy, wet and dry convection have very similar error growth characteristics. Sensitivity tests are performed to ensure that the results from the large ensembles have converged and that they are consistent with either changing resolution, diffusion levels, initial error energy length scales, or forcing amplitude.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207