MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530159993 · doi:10.1002/qj.2937

The non‐local character of turbulence asymmetry in the convective atmospheric boundary layer

2016· article· en· W2530159993 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Ghannam, Tomer Duman, Scott T. Salesky, Marcelo Chamecki, Gabriel G. Katul

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvective Boundary LayerAsymmetryMechanicsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Planetary boundary layerConvectionBoundary layerTurbulenceMass fluxPhysicsTurbulent diffusionStatistical physicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inadequacy of conventional gradient diffusion in closure modelling of turbulent heat fluxes within the convective atmospheric boundary layer is often alleviated by accounting for non‐local transport effects, such as Deardorff's counter‐gradient models, Wyngaard's transport asymmetry closures or mass‐flux parametrization. This concept of large‐eddy flux transport is examined here with the principal aim of unifying these seemingly different models. Using large‐eddy simulation (LES) runs for the atmospheric boundary layer, spanning weakly to strongly convective conditions, a generic diagnostic framework that encodes the role of third‐order moments in non‐local transport is developed and tested. The premise is that these non‐local effects are responsible for the inherent asymmetry in vertical transport and hence the necessary non‐Gaussian nature of the joint probability density function (JPDF) of vertical velocity and potential temperature must account for these effects. Conditional sampling (quadrant analysis) of this JPDF and the imbalance between the flow mechanisms of ejections and sweeps are used to characterize this asymmetry, which is then linked to the third‐order moments using a cumulant‐discard method for the Gram–Charlier expansion of the JPDF. While the concept of ejection‐sweep events used here is not a simple extension of that commonly used in the surface layer, their connection to third‐order moments shows that the concepts of bottom‐up/top‐down diffusion or updraught/downdraught models are accounted for by various quadrants of the JPDF. An analogy between mass‐flux models and the relaxed eddy accumulation method reveals that there is a seemingly implicit assumption of a Gaussian JPDF in the former.

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)0.002
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 score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207