MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079596072 · doi:10.1103/physreve.68.025301

Large particle number limit in rain

2003· article· en· W2079596072 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPrecipitation Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSmithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
KeywordsMultifractal systemMicroscale chemistryTurbulenceStatistical physicsMeteorologyLimit (mathematics)HomogeneousEnvironmental sciencePhysicsMathematicsAtmospheric sciencesFractalMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The way we conceptualize rain is fundamental in many branches of science since it provides the basis not only for rain modeling notably in meteorology and hydrology, but also for interpreting rain data (from gauges and radars). In order to empirically address this question, we use stereophotographic data to measure the positions and volumes of raindrops from approximately 10 m(3) regions containing 5000-15,000 of these drops. By determining the drop statistics in spheres of increasing size, we conduct a basic continuum mechanics thought experiment. We show that-presumably due to turbulence-there is no microscale-macroscale separation. We find that the large particle number (N) limit in rain is not a homogeneous continuum, but rather it is nonclassical, strongly inhomogeneous, and approaching a multifractal discontinuum.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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