Physical modeling of an outflow event in Howe Sound, British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outflow winds occur when differing air masses are separated by a coastal mountain barrier. In extreme cases the cross-barrier pressure gradient and the high degree of stratification (often approaching a distinct layered structure) result in channel winds which exhibit hydraulic features. We present a study of outflow winds in Howe Sound, British Columbia. A field investigation, aimed specifically at locating and quantifying hydraulic effects, was undertaken during the winter months of 1992/1993. Microbarographs positioned in the region recorded pressure changes at discrete locations in the streamwise direction. The pressures obtained during a severe outflow wind event, which occurred from December 27, 1992 to January 1, 1993, show a highly variable lower-layer depth suggestive of hydraulic control. Experiments were conducted with a three-dimensional physical model that is geometrically and kinematically similar to Howe Sound. Synoptic conditions recorded during the outflow wind event in Howe Sound in December 1992 were used to determine appropriate model flow forcing. The expanse of supercritical flow area was observed to be relatively sensitive to changes in along-channel pressure gradient and downstream depth, when compared to changes in discharge. Channel sinuosity and local topography appeared to force critical conditions at specific locations. For example, a channel bend combined with headlands was observed to force a situation where subcritical and supercritical streams flow side by side. Flow separation, resulting in lateral shear discontinuities, produced similar conditions. These effects are discussed and put into context with field observations. Field and model results show good agreement. An edited version of this paper was published by AGU. Copyright 1998 American Geophysical Union.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".