Windbreak Effects and Wind Velocity Flow Field of Low Density Forest with Two-Line-One-Belt Distribution Patterns of Single-Belt Scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to compare the wind-preventing effect of three patterns of wind flow field,horizontal and vertical wind speed changes was studied under the condition of tunnel,with thetwo-row in one-belt patternin arbor sand-fixing forest and with the coverage of 20% and 25%,and the experimental wind velocity was set 10 and 15 m.s-1,respectively.The result indicated that:a complex wind flow field formed under four centimeters in height in three kinds of configuration mode,the field structure was composed of the wind shadow and the wind speed acceleration areas.Thetwo-row in onebelt patternwith the coverage of 25% was better than that with the coverage of 20%.The change of wind speed showed the same pattern at different heights in the three different patterns.They were able to be divided into three layers—microlevel changes(1.54H and 2H),significant change in layer(0.46H and 0.92H),and stable changes in layer(0.06 ～ 0.12H).The effect of reducing wind speed of three patterns showed that the windbreak effect of the D = 4H(H is the spacing interval between the forest belts),L = 4 cm(L is row spacing)was better than D = 5H,L = 0.08 m and coverage of 20%(D = 5H,L = 0.04 m),and the last two modes had the same effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".