MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321712843 · doi:10.1061/9780784412411.00023

Approximation of the Effects of Subgrid Variations in Geometry in a Regional Ocean Model

2012· article· en· W2321712843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roy A. Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueEstuarine and Coastal Modeling · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyLimitingFloodplainDragFlow (mathematics)Scale (ratio)BayMeteorologyGeometryMechanicsMathematicsGeographyOceanographyPhysicsCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accounting for the effects of subgrid features in a numerical model is a longstanding problem in surface water hydrodynamics. This problem arises in several ways: in many cases, objects in the flow are too small in scale to consider resolving, and in other cases, there can be tremendous savings in computer resources by limiting the resolution. At least two approaches can be used for estimating these effects. In a general method using double-averaging techniques, volume averages are calculated and include terms that arise from the stresses exerted by the subgrid objects. In another method primarily used to account for subgrid topographic variations, the subgrid data is incorporated directly into the model. The first method leads to the inclusion of form drag and is illustrated by studies of flow through vegetation on a river floodplain and tidal power potential of turbines placed in Minas Passage in the Bay of Fundy. The second method is illustrated by a study of tsunami runup on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEstuarine and Coastal ModelingSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207