MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200198677 · doi:10.1175/jas-d-21-0110.1

QG–DL–Ekman: Dynamics of a Diabatic Layer in the Quasi-Geostrophic Framework

2021· article· en· W4200198677 on OpenAlexafffund
Rupert Klein, Lisa Schielicke, Stephan Pfahl, Boualem Khouider

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsEkman layerGeostrophic windEkman transportDiabaticEkman numberPotential vorticityBaroclinityStratification (seeds)Atmospheric sciencesMixed layerGeologyMechanicsVorticityBoundary layerPhysicsClimatologyFlow (mathematics)VortexAdiabatic processThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quasigeostrophic (QG) theory describes the dynamics of synoptic-scale flows in the troposphere that are balanced with respect to both acoustic and internal gravity waves. Within this framework, effects of (turbulent) friction near the ground are usually represented by Ekman layer theory. The troposphere covers roughly the lowest 10 km of the atmosphere while Ekman layer heights are typically just a few hundred meters. However, this two-layer asymptotic theory does not explicitly account for substantial changes of the potential temperature stratification due to diabatic heating associated with cloud formation or with radiative and turbulent heat fluxes which can be significant in about the lowest 3 km and in the middle latitudes. To address this deficiency, this paper extends the classical QG–Ekman layer model by introducing an intermediate dynamically and thermodynamically active layer, called the “diabatic layer” (DL) from here on. The flow in this layer is also in acoustic, hydrostatic, and geostrophic balance but, in contrast to QG flow, variations of potential temperature are not restricted to small deviations from a stable and time-independent background stratification. Instead, within the DL diabatic processes are allowed to affect the leading-order stratification. As a consequence, this layer modifies the pressure field at the top of the Ekman layer, and with it the intensity of Ekman pumping seen by the quasigeostrophic bulk flow. The result is the proposed extended quasigeostrophic three-layer QG–DL–Ekman model for midlatitude dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207