MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102124652 · doi:10.1175/2010jamc2427.1

Ground-to-Air Gas Emission Rate Inferred from Measured Concentration Rise within a Disturbed Atmospheric Surface Layer

2010· article· en· W2102124652 on OpenAlexafffund
John D. Wilson, Thomas K. Flesch, P. Bourdin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsInverseMechanicsTurbulenceDispersion (optics)Flow (mathematics)Environmental scienceAtmospheric dispersion modelingSurface layerMeteorologyMean flowInverse problemAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsMathematicsMaterials scienceLayer (electronics)Mathematical analysisGeometryOpticsAir pollutionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In reference to previously observed concentrations of methane released from a source enclosed by a windbreak, this paper examines a refined “inverse dispersion” approach for estimating the rate of emission Q from a small ground-level source, when the surface-layer winds near that source are highly disturbed. The inverse dispersion method under investigation is based on simulation of turbulent trajectories between sources and detectors, using a Lagrangian stochastic (LS) model. At issue is whether it is advantageous to recognize the flow as being disturbed and use a computed approximation to that disturbed flow to drive a fully three-dimensional LS model (3D-LS), or whether it suffices to ignore flow disturbance and adopt an LS model attuned to the horizontally homogeneous upwind flow (MO-LS, as Monin–Obukhov similarity theory describes the vertical inhomogeneity). It is demonstrated that both approaches estimate the source strength to within a factor of 2 of the true value, irrespectively of the location of the concentration measurement, and moreover that both approaches estimate the source strength correctly (to within the experimental uncertainty), when based on concentrations measured far away from the immediate influence of obstacles in the flow. However, if the concentration detector is positioned close to the flow-disturbing obstacles, then inverse dispersion based on 3D-LS provides a better estimate of source strength than does MO-LS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207