Parameterization of Joint Frequency Distributions of Potential Temperature and Water Vapor Mixing Ratio in the Daytime Convective Boundary Layer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint frequency distributions (JFDs) of potential temperature () versus water vapor mixing ratio (r) within the convective boundary layer were measured during a new field experiment named Boundary Layer Experiment 1996 (BLX96).These JFDs were found to be tilted, with the tilt a function of both height and boundary layer dynamics.These distributions are also skewed and more peaked than a joint Gaussian distribution.Three different methods are used to generate joint probability density functions (JPDFs) that approximate observed JFDs.Two classical methods, one based on a Gaussian fit and another based on surface-layer processes, are reviewed.A new method is devised, which treats the observed JFD as a mixing diagram.In the absence of advection, the only source regions for air in the mixing diagram are the surface and the entrainment zone.Thus, the tilt of the JFD can be explained by various mixtures from these two source regions.Methods that can be used to parameterize the mixing JPDF are presented.The primary advantage of this method is that the tilt is determined explicitly from properties of the surface, mixed layer, and entrainment zone.Similarity methods are used to parameterize all variables needed by the Gaussian model.The Bowen ratio and the total energy input are used to parameterize the tilt of the surface energy budget JPDF, while similarity methods are used to define the spread of the JPDF along the two axes.Relationships between the surface and mixed layer, and the mixed layer and free atmosphere are used to tilt the mixing diagram JPDF, while similarity methods are used to estimate the spread of the JPDF.The parameterizations are developed using a ''calibration'' subset of data acquired during BLX96.A ''verification'' subset of data, also acquired during BLX96, is used to show that the parameterized mixing diagram method is superior to the other two methods, because it has either a smaller error or is less sensitive to the value of the correlation between and r.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".