Drag relationships for full-grown Scots pine trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wind force acting on full-grown pine trees as they free fall was calculated based on comparison of the results of the field experiment and numerical simulation using Borisevich and Vikhrenko’s 2018 model. A number of improvements were proposed to increase the accuracy of the method. Field experiments of the free fall of five pine trees previously cut were carried out. Then, computer simulations of their motion assuming the linear dependence of drag force on air velocity were performed. Comparisons of the data of the field experiments and computer simulations showed that the linear dependence with a constant scaling parameter gives a good approximation of the drag force at a wide range of air velocity values. Error analysis was carried out to assess the quality of the numerical model. At all times during the movement, the deviations in the center mass positions observed in the field experiment and obtained in the numerical experiment do not exceed the diameter of the tree stem. The scaling parameter for five full-grown Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing in stands ranged between 25.5 and 90.0 kg/s.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".