MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181215328 · doi:10.1175/jam2382.1

Observations and Modeling of Heavy Particle Deposition in a Windbreak Flow

2006· article· en· W2181215328 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Bouvet, John D. Wilson, Andrée Tuzet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAeolian processes and effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDeposition (geology)SettlingTurbulenceReynolds stressMechanicsParticle (ecology)Particle depositionFlow (mathematics)TrajectoryMeteorologyDispersion (optics)Environmental scienceGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents new observations of deposition of heavy particles (glass beads of gravitational settling velocity 8.7 cm s−1) within an undisturbed flow and within a flow disturbed by a porous windbreak fence. These data are then used to diagnose the capability of a Lagrangian stochastic (LS) particle trajectory model, which simulates heavy particle dispersion. The model is based on existing parameterizations and is coupled to a wind model based on a Reynolds stress turbulence closure that provides computed fields of wind statistics. The deposition rates, as simulated by the model, match the observation within E = 30% of accuracy, with E being the root-mean-square error normalized by the peak value on the deposition swath. These results suggest that the LS model handles properly the heterogeneities of the flow and that the heuristic adjustments made to account for the inertia of heavy particles are useful approximations. The model consequently proves to be a valuable tool to investigate the patterns of dispersion about an obstacle.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicAeolian processes and effectsFrench-language works237,207