MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028833876 · doi:10.1029/2007gl029359

Is isotropic turbulence relevant in the atmosphere?

2007· article· en· W2028833876 on OpenAlexaff
S. Lovejoy, A. F. Tuck, S. J. Hovde, Daniel Schertzer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsIsotropyAnisotropyScalingTurbulenceAtmosphere (unit)PhysicsGeophysicsStatistical physicsMeteorologyComputational physicsOpticsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of turbulence is ubiquitous in the Earth sciences, astrophysics and elsewhere. Virtually the only theoretical paradigm that has been seriously considered is strongly isotropic in the sense that scaling exponents are the same in all directions so that any remaining anisotropy is “trivial.” Using 235 state‐of‐the‐art drop sonde data sets of the horizontal wind at ≈5 m resolution in the vertical, we show that the atmosphere is apparently outside the scope of these isotropic frameworks. It suggests that anisotropy may frequently be strong requiring different scaling exponents in the horizontal and vertical directions.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations83
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207