MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281704256 · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01342-1

Downburst-like experimental impinging jet measurements at the WindEEE Dome

2022· article· en· W4281704256 on OpenAlexaffabout
Federico Canepa, Massimiliano Burlando, Djordje Romanić, Giovanni Solari, Horia Hangan

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityMcGill UniversityWind Energy Institute of CanadaWestern University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsThunderstormJet (fluid)MeteorologyContext (archaeology)GeologyDome (geology)OutflowWind tunnelEnvironmental sciencePhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the dataset of measurements collected and published in the context of the comprehensive experimental campaign on downburst-like outflows that was performed at the WindEEE Dome at Western University, Canada. Downbursts are strong downdrafts of air that originate from thunderstorm clouds and create vigorous radial outflows upon hitting the ground. Downbursts are here simulated as transient phenomena produced by large-scale impinging jet. Two jet velocities were adopted in the experiments. The three-component velocity measurements were recorded using 7 Cobra probes mounted on a vertical stiff mast and displaced at 10 radial positions in respect to the downdraft centerline. For every radial position, each experiment with the same initial condition was repeated 20 times to inspect the deterministic features of the signal. Overall, the total of 2800 tests (2 jet velocities × 20 repetitions × 10 radial positions × 7 heights) represent one of the largest experimental campaigns on downburst winds carried out in a wind tunnel facility thus far.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207