MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113335328 · doi:10.1260/0309-524x.37.1.13

Vertical Wind Speed Extrapolation Using the <i>k</i>—ε Turbulence Model

2013· article· en· W2113335328 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

VenueWind Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
KeywordsTurbulence kinetic energyExtrapolationRoughness lengthWind speedTurbulenceWind profile power lawPower lawMeteorologyDissipationCurvatureBoundary layerMechanicsLog wind profileEnvironmental scienceLogarithmWind gradientPhysicsMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisStatisticsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical wind speed extrapolation is an important component of wind resource assessment where measured wind data at a reference height is extrapolated to hub height using the logarithmic or power law. Both models depend on roughness length but disregard information pertinent to topography. The log law results from the balance between turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) production and dissipation rate for fully developed flow over a horizontally homogeneous surface and is not generally valid. In search of a better extrapolation methodology, the k – ε turbulence model is used to simulate measurements of boundary layer flows over hills accurately. By vertically integrating terms of the modeled TKE equation, a generalization of the log law was developed. The improved model includes a radius of curvature term and height for hills. It outperforms the log law for the cases tested.

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 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · 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