Comparative analysis of <i>C</i> <i>n</i>2 estimation methods for sonic anemometer data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind speed and sonic temperature measured with ultrasonic anemometers are often utilized to estimate the refractive index structure parameter C n 2 , a vital parameter for optical propagation. In this work, we compare four methods to estimate C n 2 from C T 2 , using the same temporal sonic temperature data streams for two separated sonic anemometers on a homogenous path. Values of C n 2 obtained with these four methods using field trial data are compared to those from a commercial scintillometer and from the differential image motion method using a grid of light sources positioned at the end of a common path. In addition to the comparison between the methods, we also consider appropriate error bars for C n 2 based on sonic temperature considering only the errors from having a finite number of turbulent samples. The Bayesian and power spectral methods were found to give adequate estimates for strong turbulence levels but consistently overestimated the C n 2 for weak turbulence. The nearest neighbors and structure function methods performed well under all turbulence strengths tested.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it