MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122299373 · doi:10.1175/jamc-d-12-062.1

Saturated Pseudoadiabats—A Noniterative Approximation

2012· article· en· W2122299373 on OpenAlexaff
Atoossa Bakhshaii, Roland B. Stull

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGreenhouse Technology and Climate Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterated functionThermodynamicsApproximation errorMathematicsSkewMean squared errorBounded functionCorrelation coefficientPhysicsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two noniterative approximations are presented for saturated pseudoadiabats (also known as moist adiabats). One approximation determines which moist adiabat passes through a point of known pressure and temperature, such as through the lifting condensation level on a skew T or tephigram. The other approximation determines the air temperature at any pressure along a known moist adiabat, such as the final temperature of a rising cloudy air parcel. The method used to create these statistical regressions is a relatively new variant of genetic programming called gene-expression programming. The correlation coefficient between the resulting noniterative approximations and the iterated data such as plotted on thermodynamic diagrams is over 99.97%. The mean absolute error is 0.28°C, and the root mean square error is 0.44 within a thermodynamic domain bounded by −30° < θw ≤ 40°C, P > 20 kPa, and −60° ≤ T ≤ 40°C, where θw, P, and T are wet-bulb potential temperature, pressure, and air temperature.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicGreenhouse Technology and Climate ControlFrench-language works237,207