Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory simulations of tornado-like vortices have the advantage of controlled conditions and repeatability. Previously these experiments have been conducted in Tornado Vortex Chambers (TVC). These TVC’s had the advantage of independently controlling the radial/axial flow rate and the tangential components using a fan at the top and a swirling device at the bottom. Because of the swirling device, the flow region of interest is optically inaccessible. The Wind Engineering, Energy and Environment (WindEEE) Dome at Western is a unique large, 3D wind testing chamber, of 25 meters inner diameter and 40 meters outer diameter (including the return circuit). By using a system of 100 dynamic fans on the peripheral walls coupled with 6 larger fans at the ceiling level, WindEEE can produce any type of wind systems including 4 meters in diameter translating tornadoes and downbursts as well as a variety of dynamically shear flows. Flow visualizations and surface pressure measurements demonstrate the variation of the tornado flow field with Swirl ratio which compares very well with the former TVC well controlled experiments. Full scale Doppler radar data and WindEEE PIV measurements are shown to match for a range of Fujita Scales (Fig. 1). Based on this matching, scaling relations between the laboratory (WindEEE Dome) tornadoes and real tornadoes are for the first time drawn.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".