Studies of relative contributions of internal gravity waves and <scp>2‐D</scp> turbulence to tropospheric and lower‐stratospheric temporal wind spectra measured by a network of <scp>VHF</scp> windprofiler radars using a decade‐long data set in <scp>Canada</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tropospheric and lower‐stratospheric motions at mesoscales and larger are a mixture of waves and two‐dimensional (2‐D) turbulence. Determining their relative importance is necessary, since waves are capable of coordinated systematic momentum transport accompanying the wave propagation, and associated wind forcing, in ways that 2‐D turbulence is not. This can impact weather forecasting. Using a network of ten windprofiler radars in eastern Ontario and western Quebec in Canada, plus an additional one in the Arctic, the relative roles of internal gravity (buoyancy) waves and two‐dimensional turbulence are examined at temporal scales from about 3–4 hrs to several tens of hours (horizontal spatial scales of typically one or two hundred kilometres to a few thousand kilometres), with the purpose of investigating the respective roles of these two distinct characteristic fluid motions as functions of location, season and year. The emphasis is on studies of spectral slope variability, rather than absolute spectral magnitudes, giving a perspective not previously substantially presented. In particular, we have found a frequency band in which gravity‐wave Doppler shifting produces distinctly different spectral slopes than those predicted for 2‐D turbulence, and these differences are employed to distinguish the flow fields. The network used (excluding the Arctic site) covers an area of ∼106 km2 and includes a variety of different terrains. Radial velocities have been recorded on time scales of minutes for data lengths covering durations of up to 12 years. Altitude coverage is from 1 km to typically 14 km, at 500 m resolution. Results suggest a region from ∼2 to ∼5 km altitude (deeper for some radars) where waves are weaker and 2‐D turbulence appears to be generally more significant, but where occasional bursts of gravity‐wave activity can occur, while above typically 6–8 km, gravity waves increase in significance. There are distinct site‐to‐site variations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".