MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280597136 · doi:10.5194/wes-2021-142-ac2

Reply on RC2

2022· peer-review· en· W4280597136 on OpenAlexaff
Kartik Venkatraman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEuropean CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTerrainRidgeReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsComputational fluid dynamicsGeologyBuoyancyAerodynamicsCanopyFlow (mathematics)Tree canopyMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMechanicsGeographyPhysicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of wind conditions in complex terrain requires the use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations incorporating an accurate parameterization of forest canopy effects and variable thermal stability effects. This study aims to investigate how incorporating the presence of trees can improve flow predictions. A three-dimensional steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations model is set up using OpenFOAM to simulate the flow over a complex terrain site comprising two parallel ridges located near Perdigão, Portugal. A 7.5 km × 7.5 km terrain of the Perdigao site is constructed from elevation data centered around a 100 m met-mast located on the northeast ridge. A 30-min averaged stationary period corresponding to near-neutral conditions on a single met-mast tower is simulated. The impact of incorporating different source terms is studied such as forest canopy, Coriolis forces as well as also buoyancy forces. The prediction capability of the models is analyzed for different groups of towers on the South-West ridge, inside the valley, and on the North-East ridge based on the flow topology. The inclusion of a canopy model is shown to improve predictions close to the ground for most of the towers, while reducing prediction accuracy on top of the ridges, illustrating the need to represent terrain heterogeneity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0150.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1470.119

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207