MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408621246 · doi:10.5194/wes-2016-17

Investigation of the effect of Reynolds number and inflow parameters on mean and turbulent flow over complex topography

2016· article· en· W2408621246 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Kilpatrick, Horia Hangan, Kamran Siddiqui, Dan Parvu, Julia Lange, Jakob Mann, Jacob Berg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscarpmentTurbulence kinetic energyTurbulenceReynolds numberMechanicsInflowFlow (mathematics)GeologyMeteorologyWind tunnelMean flowGeometryPhysicsGeomorphologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A characterization of mean and turbulent flow behaviour over complex topography was conducted using a large-scale (1:25) model of Bolund Hill in the WindEEE Dome at Western University. The specific topographic feature considered was an escarpment. A total of eight unique inflow conditions were tested in order to isolate the impact of key parameters such as Reynolds number, inflow shear profile and upstream effective roughness, on flow behaviour over the escarpment. The results show that the mean flow behaviour was generally not affected by the Reynolds number, however a slight increase in speed-up over the escarpment was observed for cases with lower upstream roughness. The shape of the inflow wind shear profile also had a minor impact on the mean flow near the escarpment. More significant effects were observed in the turbulent flow behaviour, where the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) over the escarpment was found be a strong function of upstream roughness and a weak function of the Reynolds number. The local change in the upstream wind shear was found to have the most significant influence on the TKE magnitude, which more closely approximated the full-scale TKE data, and had not been previously observed in wind tunnel modelling of this topography.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207