Volume Averaging for Urban Canopies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When canopy flows are horizontally averaged to obtain mean profiles, the averaging operation can be defined either as an intrinsic average, normalized by the variable fluid volume, or as a superficial average, normalized by the total volume including solid canopy elements. Properties of spatial averages have been explored extensively in the context of flow through plant canopies, albeit with the assumption that the solid volume fraction is negligible. Without this simplification, properties relevant for non-linear terms apply to intrinsic averages while properties of gradients apply to superficial averages. To avoid inconsistencies and inaccuracies the impact of a non-negligible solid volume fraction should be considered carefully when interpreting mean profiles, when deriving mathematical relations for averaged quantities, and when introducing modelling assumptions for such terms. On this basis, we review the definitions and properties of the method of volume averaging, as developed in the more general context of flow through porous media, and discuss its application to urban canopy flows. We illustrate the properties of intrinsic and superficial averages and their effect on mean profiles with example data from a simulation of flow over constant-height cubes.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".